Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03170/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03170-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Robinson
Appellant
Bernard Smith
Appellee
Debra Stonebraker
Appellee

Document Text:

,- . 

FIL ~., f) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPE1U,&ed State& CourtofAppealt Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MICHAEL J. ROBINSON 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

BERNARD SMITH, Superintendent; 

DEBRA STONEBRAKER, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

DECO 9 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . 

No. 92-3170 

(D.C. No. 92-CV-3154) 

(D. Kansas) 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

We grant plaintiff Michael J. Robinson's motion for leave to 

proceed without prepayment of costs or fees and the application 

for a certificate of probable cause. After examining the briefs 

and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that 

oral argument would not materially assist the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The 

case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

complaint against the superintendent and an instructor at the 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-3170 Document: 010110151480 Date Filed: 12/09/1992 Page: 1 
. , 

facility in which he is incarcerated. That complaint alleges 

plaintiff was not afforded due process, was denied equal 

protection of the law, and was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The only issue on 

appeal is whether the district court properly dismissed the complaint for failing to state a claim. 

We have reviewed the record and agree with the district court 

that this litigation sterns from a verbal confrontation between 

plaintiff and an instructor in the basic education program at the 

Hutchinson Correctional Facility. Instructor Stonebraker informed 

plaintiff that his lack of work warranted a "work performance disciplinary report." His apparent response that "[Y]ou can go ahead 

and write me up, but you'll get yours in the next two weeks" 

resulted in a written disciplinary report by the instructor. Att. 

to Complaint, dated July 16, 1991. Plaintiff was removed from 

that class for safety reasons. Other inmates voicing similar 

threats also have been removed from classes from time to time. 

Att. to Complaint, dated Aug. 2, 1991. Thereafter, plaintiff participated in a hearing to determine the feasibility of permitting 

his re-enrollment in the class. Although the disciplinary report 

of the instructor was dismissed following that hearing, plaintiff 

was nonetheless indefinitely denied re-enrollment due to safety 

and security concerns. Att. to Complaint, dated Aug. 30, 1991, 

and March 13, 1992. 

We agree with the district court that plaintff's complaint 

fails to state a claim for relief cognizable under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. The complaint does not allege infringement of a right, 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-3170 Document: 010110151480 Date Filed: 12/09/1992 Page: 2 
.. .--

privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the 

United States. The instructor's disciplinary report appears to 

have been processed consistent with procedures designed to accommodate institutional needs with plaintiff's retained rights. 

Plaintiff successfully challenged that report. Sufficient due 

process and equal protection of the law were afforded plaintiff. 

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). 

The Eighth Amendment protects the core areas of shelter, 

sanitation, food, personal safety, medical care and adequate 

clothing. Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 566 (10th Cir. 1980). 

Receipt of desirable aids to rehabilitation, such as education, 

may be delayed without violating the Eighth Amendment. Rhodes v. 

Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 348 (1981). This circuit has never determined that prisoners enjoy an entitlement to educational or rehabilitation services, only to an environment non-threatening to 

mental and physical well being. Battle v. Anderson, 564 F.2d 388, 

403 (10th Cir. 1977). A limitation on educational privilege, particularly to further a legitimate concern such as articulated by 

the penal institution here, is not a denial of a federallyguaranteed right. Consequently, we hold that the district court's 

dismissal was appropriate. 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-3170 Document: 010110151480 Date Filed: 12/09/1992 Page: 3