Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01304/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01304-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard Kuretich
Appellee
Leslie Paul
Appellant

Document Text:

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

LESLIE PAUL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

RICHARD KURETICH, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

MAR O 81989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 88-1304 

(D.C . No. 87-C-1721) 

(D. Colo.) 

Before ANDERSON and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and ROGERS, District 

Judge.** 

**The Honorable Richard D. Rogers, United States District Judge 

for the District of Kansas, 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. 

3 4(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

s u bmitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

*This order and 

be cited, or 

for purposes of 

res judicata, 

judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

or collateral · estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3 . 

Appellate Case: 88-1304 Document: 010110024573 Date Filed: 03/08/1989 Page: 1 
The plaintiff-appellant appeals the district court's order of 

February 16, 1988, dismissing his civil rights action. The 

plaintiff, a Pakistani inmate at the Colorado Territorial 

Correctional Facility (CTCF}, commenced the underlying action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the defendant, who was 

employed in the CTCF kitchen. The plaintiff alleged that 

beginning in January of 1985, while he was assigned to kitchen 

detail, the defendant began directing racial slurs towards the 

plaintiff in front of others, including prison officers and staff. 

The plaintiff alleged that due to the defendant's verbal 

abuse, he suffered severe humiliation. The plaintiff asserted 

that he commenced a prison grievance action against the defendant, 

but the defendant did not desist in his verbal harassment. The 

plaintiff contended that the defendant's conduct violated certain 

prison regulations, as well as state law, constituted cruel and 

unusual punishment, and violated the plaintiff's right to due 

process and equal protection. He sought compensatory damages in 

the amount of $10,000 and punitive damages in an equal amount. 

The magistrate to whom the case was referred pursuant to 

local rule recommended that the plaintiff's action be dismissed. 

Upon review of the magistrate's recommendation and the plaintiff's 

objection thereto, the district court entered an order dismissing 

the action. 

Although prose complaints are to be construed liberally and 

held to a "less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted 

by lawyers," Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), a 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-1304 Document: 010110024573 Date Filed: 03/08/1989 Page: 2 
d~trict court may dismiss a complaint that has been filed in 

forma pauperis under 28 u.s.c. § 1915(d) if it determines that 

"the plaintiff cannot make a rational argument on the law or the 

facts in support of his claim." Yellen v. Cooper, 828 F.2d 1471, 

1475 (10th Cir. 1987) (quoting Van Sickle v. Holloway, 791 F.2d 

1 431, 1434 (10th Cir. 1986)). 

Based upon our review of the record and briefs on appeal, 1 we 

conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing the 

plaintiff's action. In order to state a claim under 

42 U.S.C.§ 1983, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant 

acted under color of state law and that his conduct "'deprived 

[the plaintiff] of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the 

Constitution or the laws of the United States.'" Shaw v. Neece, 

727 F.2d 947, 949 (10th Cir.) (quoting Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 

527, 535 (1981)), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 976 (1984). 

The only conduct alleged on the part of the defendant was 

verbal abuse and harassment. While such conduct may give rise to 

a cause of action for slander in state court, it does not 

constitute a constitutional violation compensable in federal 

court. Allegations of verbal abuse or harassment "simply do not 

show an invasion of any federally protected right." Coyle v. 

Hughs, 436 F. Supp. 591, 592 (W.D. Okla. 1977). See also Rahman 

v. Stephenson, 626 F. Supp. 886, 888 (W.D. Tenn. 1986); Keyes v. 

City of Albany, 594 F. Supp. 1147, 1155 (N.D.N.Y. 1984); Freeman 

1 Although he was never served with a copy of the summons and 

complaint in the district court, the defendant-appellee filed a 

brief on appeal, stating that by so doing, he was not subjecting 

himself to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court 

for the District of Colorado. 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-1304 Document: 010110024573 Date Filed: 03/08/1989 Page: 3 
v . . Trudell, 497 F. Supp. 481, 482 (E.D. Mich. 1980); cf. 

Ellingburg v. Lucas, 518 F.2d 1196, 1197 (8th Cir. 1975)(damages 

for defamation are not recoverable under§ 1983); Azar v. Conley, 

456 F.2d 1382, 1389 (6th Cir. 1972)(slander is not actionable 

under the Civil Rights Act); Heller v. Roberts, 386 F.2d 832 (2d 

Cir. 1967)(same); Lynch v. Cannatella, 810 F.2d 1363, 1367 (5th 

Cir. 1987)(mere threatening language and gestures of a custodial 

officer do not amount to constitutional violations); Collins v. 

Cundy, 603 F.2d 825, 827 (10th Cir. 1979)(same); Stacey v. Ford, 

554 F. Supp. 8, 9 (N.D. Ga. 1982)(same); Miller v. Hawver, 474 

F. Supp. 441, 443 (D. Colo. 1979)(same). But cf. Burton v. 

Livingston, 791 F.2d 97, 100 (8th Cir. 1986)(allegations that 

guard made death threat, accompanied by racial epithets, while 

pointing cocked gun at plaintiff prisoner who had just given 

testimony against another guard in a§ 1983 action stated a claim 

for relief). 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

4 

Appellate Case: 88-1304 Document: 010110024573 Date Filed: 03/08/1989 Page: 4