Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-03005/USCOURTS-ca10-16-03005-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Claude Maye
Appellee
Taurean Xavier Proch
Appellant
United States Bureau of Prisons
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

TAUREAN XAVIER PROCH, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES BUREAU OF 

PRISONS; CLAUDE MAYE, Warden, 

USP-Leavenworth, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 16-3005 

(D.C. No. 5:14-CV-03147-SAC-DJW) 

(D. Kan.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before HARTZ, HOLMES, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Taurean Proch appeals the district court’s summary dismissal of his Bivens

action to obtain meaningful access to the courts. In 2009, Mr. Proch was indicted on 

charges of solicitation to commit an armed bank robbery and being a felon in 

possession of a firearm. He pleaded guilty to the possession charge and, through a 

plea agreement, the solicitation charge was dismissed. After finding that he had three 

prior violent-felony convictions under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), the 

 *

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

July 18, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-3005 Document: 01019658641 Date Filed: 07/18/2016 Page: 1 
2 

court calculated a guidelines range of 188 to 235 months. It sentenced him to 190 

months’ imprisonment and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed on direct appeal. See 

United States v. Proch, 637 F.3d 1262, 1265, 1269 (11th Cir. 2011). 

Mr. Proch filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence in June 

2012. While the motion was pending,1

 Mr. Proch filed the complaint in this case in 

the District of Kansas, as he is imprisoned in Leavenworth. He sought a writ of 

mandamus and a declaratory judgment, alleging that he is being deprived of access to 

legal materials pertaining to state-court convictions that formed the basis for his 

ACCA sentencing enhancement in federal court. He wants the materials so that he 

can collaterally attack those convictions and undermine his ACCA enhancement. 

Attachments to the complaint reveal that prison officials (1) denied Mr. Proch’s 

request for access to state-law materials because the “Bureau is not mandated to 

provide state case law and other state legal materials,” and (2) suggested that 

Mr. Proch use outside resources to obtain such materials, including purchasing state 

publications, pursuing private counsel, utilizing legal services provided by the 

University of Kansas (KU) School of Law, or contacting “the specific state to see if 

such materials may be provided to you.” R. Vol. 1 at 13, 15. 

The district court ordered Mr. Proch to show cause why the complaint should 

not be dismissed as deficient. It said that his pleadings had not shown that “the 

denial of legal resources hindered his efforts to pursue a nonfrivolous claim.” R. 

 1

 The § 2255 motion was ultimately denied and it is currently before the 

Eleventh Circuit on appeal. 

Appellate Case: 16-3005 Document: 01019658641 Date Filed: 07/18/2016 Page: 2 
3 

Vol. 1 at 33. In response, Mr. Proch argued that the prison officials’ suggestion that 

he solicit legal materials from outside the institution and hope that someone provides 

them falls short of the officials’ constitutional obligation. He also alleged that he 

contacted the KU law school but was told that it was unable to assist him in 

challenging Florida convictions. The district court dismissed Mr. Proch’s complaint 

for lack of a showing of actual injury because he “identifies no specific claim he is 

unable to bring to the state court’s attention . . . and he has no constitutionally 

protected right to be provided state legal materials sufficient to research the 

possibility of any such claim that might still be available.” R. Vol. 1 at 59. 

On appeal Mr. Proch renews his arguments and petitions us for a writ of 

mandamus. He asserts that he has no access to the materials he needs via LexisNexis 

at the prison law library or at the KU law library and that the Bureau of Prisons has 

provided no materials, leaving him “access to the courts in word, but not deed.” 

Opening Br. at 2. Because Mr. Proch is proceeding without the assistance of counsel, 

we construe his filings liberally “but we do not act as his advocate.” Ford v. Pryor, 

552 F.3d 1174, 1178 (10th Cir. 2008). 

Prisoners have a “fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts,” 

which requires prison officials to provide inmates “adequate law libraries or adequate 

assistance from persons trained in the law.” Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 

(1977), overruled in part on other grounds by Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 

(1996). But the prisoner must show an actual injury, see Lewis, 518 U.S. at 349, and 

that requirement “is not satisfied by just any type of frustrated legal claim,” id. at 

Appellate Case: 16-3005 Document: 01019658641 Date Filed: 07/18/2016 Page: 3 
4 

354. Rather, the tools Bounds requires “are those that the inmates need in order to 

attack their sentences, directly or collaterally, and in order to challenge the conditions 

of their confinement.” Id. at 355. Prisons are under no obligation to enable prisoners 

to discover grievances. See id. at 354. Moreover, “an inmate cannot establish 

relevant actual injury simply by establishing that his prison’s law library or legal 

assistance program is subpar”; “the inmate . . . must go one step further and 

demonstrate that the alleged shortcomings in the library or legal assistance program 

hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim.” Id. at 351. And the legal claim must be 

nonfrivolous. Id. at 353 n.3. 

We agree with the district court. Mr. Proch has not established any injury or 

prejudice. He has provided no facts indicating the basis for overturning any state 

conviction. He appears to want only the tools to discover a grievance, a venture the 

Bureau is under no obligation to support. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 354; Cunningham v. 

Dist. Attorney’s Office, 592 F.3d 1237, 1271 (11th Cir. 2010) (plaintiff must show 

“more than hope” of obtaining relief on the underlying claim (internal quotation 

marks omitted)). Mr. Proch’s motion to proceed without prepayment of fees is 

granted and the judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

Entered for the Court 

Harris L Hartz 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 16-3005 Document: 01019658641 Date Filed: 07/18/2016 Page: 4