Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01352/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01352-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Cantu
Appellee
William Commons
Appellant
Robert Garcia
Appellee
William Price
Appellee

Document Text:

FIL LD 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALtinited States Cm.;rt of Appeah 

'fenth Ci~1;uit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

WILLIAM COMMONS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

JAMES CANTU, ROBERT GARCIA, 

and WILLIAM PRICE, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APR 15 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk -

No. 92-1352 

(D . Colorado) 

(D . C. No. 92-8 - 1083 ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

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 cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

We grant William Commons' motion to proceed without prepayment of costs or fees, and affirm the district court's Fed . R. 

Civ. P. 12{b) (6 ) dismissal of his civil rights suit against the 

warden and two Colorado Department of Corrections employees at the 

Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility. Our decision is based in 

* Thi s o rder and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not b e cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

exc ept for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36 . 3 . 

Appellate Case: 92-1352 Document: 010110201692 Date Filed: 04/15/1993 Page: 1 
large part on the report and recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge, which was adopted by the district court. It is 

unnecessary to repeat the grounds and reasons set out in the 

opinion below; however, we add the following comments. 

In his complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Mr. 

Commons alleges three violations of his constitutional rights: 

(1 ) "I have been deprived of meaningful rehabilitation and 

vocational training by the defendants in violation of my right to 

equal protection of the laws;" (2) "I have been subjected to cruel 

and unusual punishments by the defendants by being compelled to 

obey and be supervised by inmate guards;" and (3 ) "I have been 

subjected to cruel and unusual punishments by defendant Price in 

violation of my right to equal protection of the laws." 

In his objection to the Magistrate Judge's report, Mr. 

Commons ties his denial of rehabilitation claim to an alleged 

liberty interest in prisoner rehabilitation and vocational 

training created by Colo. Rev. Stat. § 17-20-115 (1973). On 

appeal, he also cites Colo. Rev . Stat. § 18-1-102 (1973) .

1 He 

1 Colo . Rev. Stat. § 17-20-115 (1986) provides as follows: 

Persons to perfonn labor. All persons convicted of 

crime and confined in the correctional facilities at 

Canon City under the laws of this state, except such as 

are precluded by the terms of the judgment of conviction, shall perfonn labor under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the department. 

Colo . Rev. Stat. § 18-1- 102 (b) (1986) provides as follows: 

Purpose of code, statutory construction. (1) This code 

shall be construed in such manner as to promote maximum 

fulfillment of its general purposes, namely: 

[continued on next page] 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-1352 Document: 010110201692 Date Filed: 04/15/1993 Page: 2 
also represents in his objection and on appeal that he is suing 

Messrs. Garcia and Price in their individual capacities. Finally, 

he asserts that the district court erred in dismissing his 

complaint without requiring an answer to be filed, and without an 

evidentiary hearing. 

Mr. Commons' complaint raises significant questions of 

standing with respect to aspects of all three claims. It also 

appears not even to reach the liberty interest alleged since Mr . 

Commons' claim is centered on an alleged denial of on the job 

training to be a cook, rather than any and all opportunities for 

rehabilitation. The latter point is moot, however, since in no 

event do the statutes in question create a liberty interest. See, 

~, Kentucky Dep't of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454 

(1989); Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249 (1983); Hewitt v. 

Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 472 (1983). 

With respect to Mr. Commons' Eighth Amendment claims, he 

alleges no deprivation sufficiently serious or grave to form the 

basis of a violation, and no culpable state of mind on the part of 

the defendants. See Wilson v. Seiter, 111 S. Ct. 2321, 2324, 

2326-27 (1991) . Mostly, Mr. Commons' allegations are simply 

conclusory statements without the necessary factual averments. 

See Hall v. Bellmen, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). That 

[continued from previous page] 

(b ) To forbid the commission of offenses and to 

prevent their occurrence through the deterrent influence 

of the sentences authorized; to provide for the 

rehabilitation of those convicted and their punishment 

when required in the interests of public protection; 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 92-1352 Document: 010110201692 Date Filed: 04/15/1993 Page: 3 
is also true with respect to general statements of Mr. Commons' 

fear of assault by other inmates or inmate guards. Allegations of 

generalized fear and intimidation are insufficient to state either 

a constitutionally inhumane condition, or culpable state of mind 

on the part of prison officials. 

Finally, the district court did not err by failing to require 

an answer to the complaint, or in not according Mr. Commons an 

evidentiary hearing. 

Although dismissals under Rule 12(b) (6) typically follow 

a motion to dismiss, giving plaintiff notice and 

opportunity to amend his complaint, a court may dismiss 

sua sponte "when it is 'patently obvious' that the 

plaintiff could not prevail on the facts alleged, and 

allowing him an opportunity to amend his complaint would 

be futile." 

Hall v. Bellman, 935 F.2d at 1109-10 (10th Cir. 1991) (quoting 

McKinney v. Oklahoma, 925 F.2d 363, 365 (10th Cir. 1991) (c iting 

Baker v. Directo r. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 916 F.2d 725, 727 (D.C. 

Cir. 1990 ) (per curiam))) . 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the judgment of the 

district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-1352 Document: 010110201692 Date Filed: 04/15/1993 Page: 4