Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01958/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01958-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Peter A. Douglas
Appellee
Denise Estrada
Appellee
Joseph Macastle Jackson
Appellant

Document Text:

FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United Scaca Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cira1it FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JOSEPH MACASTLE JACKSON, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

PETER A. DOUGLAS; DENISE ESTRADA, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

FEB 2 3 1988 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 87-1958 

(D.C. No. 87-532-T) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

Before MOORE and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and BRIMMER, Chief Judge.* 

*Honorable Clarence A. Brimmer, Chief Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Wyoming, sitting by 

designation. 

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. 34.1.8. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

This is an appeal from an order of the district court 

dismissing plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted. 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner in Oklahoma, commenced this 

act i on pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleged that, 

Appellate Case: 87-1958 Document: 010110027469 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 1 
while performing his assigned duties as a baker, he was directed 

by defendant Estrada to light the ovens, which exploded injuring 

his eyes. He alleged that the explosion occurred due to the 

negligence of defendants to properly maintain the ovens. 

Plaintiff also alleged that Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 155(13) and 

(23) and Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 65 violated the Constitution by 

denying him access to state courts. 

In order to state a cause of action under § 1983, plaintiff 

must establish not only that "the conduct complained of was 

committed by a person acting under color of state law," but also 

that that "conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or 

immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United 

States." Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981). 

Plaintiff alleged that although the "ovens had been checked 

many times for gas leaks," state officials, by failing to take the 

"proper corrective and/or precautionary measures," were negligent 

in maintaining the ovens. The Supreme Court has held that 

injuries due to government officials' negligence do not implicate 

the Fourteenth Amendment. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 

(1986); Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344 (1986). Plaintiff has 

not stated a cause of action cognizable under§ 1983. 

While an inmate's civil rights may be suspended during 

incarceration, he retains his constitutional right of access to 

the courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977). Okla. Stat. 

tit. 21, § 65 has not been interpreted to deny inmates this right, 

nor does plaintiff allege that he has been denied the right to 

file pleadings in state court. Although plaintiff may be denied 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-1958 Document: 010110027469 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 2 
relief pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 155, a state has the 

power to decide which immunities it will retain. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff's motion to 

correct the notice of appeal is granted. All of plaintiff's other 

outstanding motions are denied. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 87-1958 Document: 010110027469 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 3