T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of * law o f th e c a se , res ju d ica ta, a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. Itm a yb e c ited , h o w e v e r, f o r its per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1.

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### M ay 23, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT J AM E S CL AYT ON, P lain tiff -A p p e llan t, v. N o. 06- 7079 RON W ARD, Di r e c t o r , Ok l a h o ma De p a rtme n to f

Co rr e c t i o n s ; M I KE M U L L I N , W ar den/ Super i nt endent Ok l a h o maS t a t e P e n i t e n t i a ry ; RO N A N D E R SO N , D epartm entof C orr ect i ons Ge n e r a l Co u n s e l ; DR E W EDMONDS ON, A tt orneyG ener al of the St at e of O kl ahoma, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. ( D . C . N o . C I V - 0 4 - 2 2 3 - W) ( E . D . O kl ahoma)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e B R I S C O E , M c K A Y , andM c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned u n a n im o u slyth a t o ra l ar g u m e n t w o u ldn o t m a ter iallya ss ist in th e d e ter m in a tio n o f th is appea l . See Fed. R . A pp. P. 34( a) ( 2) ; 10th C i r . R . 34. 1( G ) . T he ca s e i s , ther efor e,A lth o u g h th e g o v e rn m e n t d o e s n o t co n tes t o u r ju risd ictio n o v e r C layt o n ’s a p p e a l, 1 w e h av e a n ind ep en d en t du tyto ex am ine o u r ow n juri sd ict ion . A fter rev iew ing the re co rd and ourpr ece dent , w e ar e s at i s fi ed thatw e have j ur i s di ct i on overC l ayt on’ s appea l of the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al of hi s § 1983 s ui t . H ow ever , w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on overan appe al of the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or derdeny i ng C l ayt on’ s m ot i on t o r econs i derbecaus e C l ayt on fai l ed t o fi l e an a m ended not i ce of appea l aft erthi s or derw as ent er ed. See St ouffe rv. R eynol ds , 168 F. 3d 1155, 1172 ( 10th C i r . 1999) ( not i ng thatappel l at e j ur i s di ct i on over p o st- d ism issal ord ers req u ir es p lai n ti ff to f il e a d d it ion al or a m en d ed n o ti ce o f a p p ea l) . T he def endant s i ncl uded O kl ahoma D epartm entof C orr ect i ons ( “O D O C ”) 2 D i r ect orR on W ar d ( “W ar d”) , O kl ahoma St at e Peni t ent i ary( “O SP”) W ar den M i ke M u l l i n ( “ M u l l i n ” ) , ODO C Ge n e r a l Co u n s e l Ro n An d e r s o n ( “ An d e r s o n ” ) , Ok l a h o ma A tt o rne yG en era l D rew E d m o n d so n (“E d m o n d so n ”) a n d Jo h n an d Jan e D o es A -Z (c o lle c tiv e ly “t h e d e f

e n d a n ts ” ). T h e d istric t co u rt c o rre c tlyn o ted th a t to th e e x ten t th e d e f e n d a n ts a re su e d in 3 th e ir o f f icia l ca p a c iti e s a s D O C o f f icia ls, C layt o n ’s c laim s a re b a rre d b yth e E lev e n th A m e n d m e n t. S e e T ru

jil lo v . W ill iam s, 4 6 5 F .3 d 1 2 1 0 , 1 2 2 3 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (“ A c laim forr etr oact i ve monet aryr ei m bur s ementas s ert ed aga i ns ts t at e off i ci al s . . . i n thei roffi ci al capa ci t i es cons t i tut es a s ui tform onet arydamages agai ns tthe s t at e” a nd i s barr ed by so v ere ign im m u n ity . ).

- 2- o rd e re d s u b m itte d w ith o u t o ra l a rg u m e n t. P lai n ti ff Jam es C layton (“C layton ”) a p p ea ls th e d istri ct co u rt ’s dism issal of h is pro s e a c t i o n f

i l e d p u r s u a n tt o 4 2 U. S . C. § 1 9 8 3 . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. 1 2 9 1 a n d a f

f i rm. 1 C l ayt on, an O kl ahoma st at e pr i s oner , i s curr ent l ys ervi ng a l i fe s ent ence fors econd degr ee mur der . H e fi l ed a c om pl ai ntagai ns ts ever aldefe ndant s i n thei ri ndi vi dual and 2 o f f icia l ca p a c iti e s a lleg in g v io latio n s o f v a rio u s c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts d u rin g a tw e n ty -six days t ayatthe O SP i n 2003 and r eques t i ng i nj unct i ve and monet ary r el i ef. C l ayt on 3 as s ert ed thr ee c l ai m s , i ncl udi ng that : ( 1) he w as pl ace d i n O SP’s di s ci pl i naryconfi nement (“ H -u n it”) w ith o u t a h e a rin g in v io latio n o f d u e p ro c e ss ; (2 ) th is s e g re g a tio n w a s in- 3-

re talia tio n f

o r h is s u c c e ss in o b tain in g a w rit o f h a b e a s c o rp u s; a n d (3 ) th e d e f e n d a n ts v io late d th e ter m s o f

a se ttl e m e n t ag re e m e n t in w h ich C layt o n w a s n o t to b e h o u se d in a n yc o rr e c tio n a l f

a c ility in O k la h o m a u n le s s C la yto n m a d e s u c h a re q u e s t. A fter co n side ri n g C layton ’s co m p lai n t, the d ef en d an ts’ m o ti o n s, C layton ’s r es pons e and a ffi davi t , the def endant s ’ r epl i es , and a s peci al r eportpr epar ed bythe O D O C i n acc or dance w i th M art i nez v. A ar on, 570 F. 2d 317 ( 10th C i r . 1978) , the di s tr i ct co u rtd ism issed C layton ’s su itp u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e), n o ti n g that C layton ’s al l egat i ons w er e vague , concl us ory , and fa i l ed t o r i s e t o the l evel of a c ons t i tut i onal v io la tio n . C l ayt on w as or i gi nal l yconvi ct ed of s econd de gr ee mur der , as w el l as otherr el at ed convi ct i ons , i n M us kogee County , O kl ahoma, i n 1980 and s ent ence d t o l i fe i m pr i s onm ent . I n 1987, he fi l ed a l aw s ui tagai ns tthe O D O C . W hi l e thi s l aw s ui tw as p e n d i n g , Cl a yt o n wa s tr a n s f e rr e d t o W a s h i n g t o n t o s e rv e h i s s e n t e n c e f o rth e Ok l a h o ma c o n v i c t i o n s . I n F e b ru a ry o f 1 9 9 3 , C l a yt o n ’ s l a w s u i tw a s d i s m i s s e d w i th p r e j u d i c e b y a m utual s t i pul at i on of di s m i s s al . Pur s uantt o thi s di s m i s s al , the O D O C ent er ed a s ett l ementagr eementw i th C l ayt on i n w hi ch C l ayt on agr eed t o dr op al l cl ai m s agai ns tthe O D O C i n excha nge forthe O D O C ’ s pr om i s e nott o s eek Cl ayt on’ s r eturn fr om W a s h in g to n u n le s s n e c e s s ita te d b yf u rth e r l itig a tio n . I n A pr i l of 2003, C l ayt on w as gr ant ed a c ondi t i onal w r i tof habe as corpus bythe E a ste rn D istric t o f

O k lah o m a , w h ich g ra n ted th e sta te 1 2 0 d a y s to a llo w C layt o n to w ith d ra w h is g u iltyp lea . In lig h t o f th is w rit, th e O D O C b ro u g h t C layt o n b a c kto- 4-

O k lah o m a to ap p e a r b e f o re th e M u sk o g e e C o u n tyD istric t C o u rt to w ith d ra w h is g u ilty pl ea a nd s t and tr i al . W hi l e aw ai t i ng hi s appea r ance , C l ayt on w as hous ed i n H - uni tat O SP for tw enty - s i x day s . A ft erw i thdr aw i ng hi s pl ea, C l ayt on w as di s char ged fr om O D O C ’ s cus t odyt o the M us kogee CountySher i ff. T he l aw s ui tati s s ue i n thi s appea l c h a lle n g e s th e tw e n ty-s ix d a y s C la yto n s p e n t a t O S P . A tt orneyG ener al E dm onds on fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s C l ayt on’ s compl ai ntfor lac ko f p e rso n a l p a rticip a tio n b e c a u se th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l d o e s n o t ex e rc ise a u th o rity overi nm at es hous ed i n the cus t odyof the O D O C and he w as nota partyt o the s ett l ement a g re e m e n t a t is s u e . W e c o n c lu d e th a t E d m o n d s o n w a s e n title d to d is m is s a l. T hi s courtw i l l uphol d a di s m i s s al underR ul e 12( b) ( 6) “onl yw hen i tappea r s that th e p lain tiff

c a n p ro v e n o se t o f

f a c ts in su p p o rt o f

th e c laim s th a t w o u lde n tit le h im to r el i ef, acc ept i ng the w el l - pl eade d al l egat i ons of the compl ai ntas true and c ons trui ng them i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the pl ai nt i ff. ” D ubbs v. H ead St art , I nc. , 336 F. 3d 1194, 12 01 (10th C i r. 20 03 ) ( ci t at i on s om i tt ed). “T he legal suffici encyof a c om plai nt i s a q u e s tio n o f

la w ; th e re f

o re , a R u le 1 2 (b )( 6 ) d is m is s a l is re v ie w e d d e n o v o .” Id .

“ [ F ]o r liab ili tyto a rise u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 , a d e f e n d a n t’s d ire c t p e rso n a l re sp o n sib ili ty forthe cl ai m ed depr i vat i on of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ghtm us tbe es t abl i s hed. ” Truj i l l o v. W i l l i ams, 465 F. 3d 1210, 1227 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . See M i t chel l v. M aynar d, 80 F. 3d 1433, 1 4 4 1 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) (no ti n g there is no resp o n d ea t sup erior li ab il ityu n d er § 1 9 8 3 ); O l s on v. St ott s , 9 F. 3d 1475, 1477 ( 10th C i r . 1993) ( aff i rm i ng di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al w her e “pl ai nt i ff f

ai l ed t o al l ege pe r s onal part i ci pat i on of the def endant s ”) . E ven- 5-

c o n stru in g C layt o n ’s c o m p lain t li b e ra lly , h e f a ils to in d ica te h o w E d m o n d so n p e rso n a lly p a rt ic ip a te d in a s s ig n in g h im to O S P o r H -u n it. A t m o st, C layt o n a ss e rts th a t “A tto rn e yG e n e ra l [ E d m o n d so n ] a d v ise s, su g g e sts and cons ul t s w i th the def endant s . . . and part i ci pat ed, byact i on and ac qui es cenc e, i n the act s her ei n. ” R ecor d on A ppeal( “R O A ”) , D ocument1. T hi s i s the onl ym ent i on of E d m o n d so n in C layt o n ’s e n tire c o m p lain t. A lth o u g h w e m u st a c c e p t all C layt o n ’s w e llp lead ed fa cts i n the c o m p lai n t as true , thes e a re d ist ing u ishe d fro m m ere co n clus o ry al l egat i ons . T al v. H ogan, 453 F. 3d 1244, 1252 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . See Sm i th v. Pl at i , 258 F. 3d 1167, 1174 n. 6 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ( not i ng thateven w hen compl ai nti s cons trued li b era ll y , this co u rth as d ism issed p ro se co m p lai n ts fo r fa il u re to a ll eg e su ff ici en t fac ts) . B e c a u se C layt o n a ss e rts n o f a c ts ty in g E d m o n d so n to th e d e c isio n to p lac e h im in H - uni tatO SP, he has no cons t i tut i onal cl ai m agai ns tE dm onds on and ther efor e w e nee d notaddr es s w hetherhi s s t at e l aw contr actcl ai m s have a nym er i t . W e af fi rm the di s tr i ct c o u rt ’ s d i s m i s s a l o f

C l a yt o n ’ s c l a i m s a g a i n s tE d m o n d s o n f o rf a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m . “ We are fre e to a ff

irm a d istri ct co u rtd ec isi o n o n an yg rou n d s fo r w h ich th ere is a reco rd s uffi ci entt o perm i tconcl us i ons of l aw , even gr ounds notr el i ed upon bythe di s tr i ct c o u rt .” S m ith , 2 5 8 F .3 d a t 1 1 7 4 . W a rd , M u lli n , an d A n d e rso n f iled a m o tio n f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t/m o tio n to di s m i s s ar gui ng thatC l ayt on coul d notas s erta due pr oces s cl ai m becaus e he ha d no pr ot ect ed i nt er es ti n w her e and unde rw hats ecur i tyl evel he w as confi ned, C l ayt on as s ert ed no fa ctual s upportforhi s r et al i at i on cl ai m , and the di s tr i ctcourtl acke dT h e d istri ct co u rtd ism issed C layton ’s ac ti o n p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e). It 4 w o u ldh a v e b e e n im p ro p e r f o r th e c o u rt to h a v e d ism iss e d C layt o n ’s c laim su a sp o n te underthi s pr ovi s i on bas ed s ol el yon C l ayt on’ s compl ai nt . See G ai nes v. St ens eng, 292 F. 3d 1222, 1225- 26 ( 10th C i r . 2002) ( hol di ng thatdi s m i s s i ng § 1983 act i on s ua s pont e for fai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m i s i m pr operw hen ther e i s compl et e abs ence of evi dence conce rni ng w hetherdur at i on and condi t i ons of pl ai nt i ff’ s confi nementi m pos ed atypi cal a n d s ig n if

ic a n t h a rd s h ip in re la tio n to o rd in a ry in c id e n ts o f p ri s o n lif

e ). I n the pr es entcas e, des pi t e di s m i s s i ng C l ayt on’ s cl ai m pur s uantt o § 1915( e) , the d istric t co u rt p e rm itt e d C layt o n to f ile a re sp o n se to d e f

e n d a n ts’ m o tio n s a n d a n a f f id a v it, th e re b yp ro v id in g h im w ith o p p o rtu n iti e s to a ss e rt f a c ts a n d e v id e n c e a s to w h yh is confi nementi n H - uni ti m pos ed an a typi caland s i gni fi canthar ds hi p on hi m i n compar i s on to th e o rd in a ryin c id e n ts o f p riso n life . H o w e v e r, C layt o n ’s r e sp o n se a n d a f f id a v it m e re ly r ei t er at e the conc l us oryal l egat i ons found i n hi s compl ai nt . U pon r evi ew of the r ecor d, w e have det erm i ned thatC l ayt on fai l ed t o pr ovi de s uffi ci entevi dence t o w i ths t and s um m aryj udgm entand w e w i l l aff i rm on thi s gr ound.

- 6- j ur i s di ct i on overC l ayt on’ s s t at e l aw br eac h of contr actcl ai m . B ecaus e w e ca n aff i rm the di s tr i ctcourton anygr ounds forw hi ch ther e i s a r ecor d s uffi ci entt o perm i tconcl us i ons of l aw , w e conc l ude thatthe O D O C defe ndant s w er e ent i t l ed t o s um m aryj udgm enton C l ayt on ’s du e process and ret al i at i on cl ai m s. 4

“ S u m m a ryju d g m e n t sh o u ldb e g ra n ted if ‘th e p lea d in g s, d e p o sitio n s, a n sw e rs to interrog atories, an d ad m issi o n s o n fil e, t o g ethe r w ith the a ff idav it s, if an y , sh o w that there i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand thatthe movi ng partyi s ent i t l ed t o a jud g m en t as a m att er o f law . ’” C arp en ter v. B o eing C o . , 4 5 6 F . 3 d 1 1 8 3 , 1 1 9 2 (10 th C ir . 2006) ( quot i ng Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) ) . “N ei ther‘ m er e as s ert i ons and conj ectur e, ’ nor‘ the exi s t ence of a s ci nt i l l a of e vi dence i n s upportof the nonmovant ’ s pos i t i on, ’ i s s uffi ci ent t o s how a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t ; ‘ an i s s ue of mat er i al fac ti s genui ne onl yi f the nonm ovantpr es ent s fac t s s uch thata r eas onabl e j urycoul d fi nd i n favorof the- 7-

n o n m o v an t. ’” Id . (i n terna l ci tat ion s o m itted). C layt o n a rg u e s th a t h e w a s p lac e d in O S P ’s H -u n it w ith o u t d u e p ro c e ss a n d in r et al i at i on forhi s s ucce s s i n obt ai ni ng a w r i tof habe as corpus and thatthi s as s i gnm ent i m pos ed an a typi caland s i gni fi canthar ds hi p on hi m w hen compar ed t o hi s pr i or condi t i ons of conf

i nement . W e di s agr ee. A s corr ect l ynot ed bythe di s tr i ctcourt , the due pr oces s cl aus e does notpr ot ectan in m a te f ro m b e in g tra n sf

e rre d f ro m o n e in stitu tio n to a n o th e r a n d p lac in g a n in m a te in to adm i nis trat i ve segregati on do es not “i nv olve dep ri vati on of a li bertyi nter est i ndepende nt l ypr ot ect ed bythe D ue Pr oces s C l aus e. ” Truj i l l o, 465 F. 3d at1225 ( quot i ng B a ileyv . S h ill in g e r, 8 2 8 F .2 d 6 5 1 , 6 5 2 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 7 )). T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t “th e D u e P ro c e ss C lau se o f th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t [ d o e s n o t en tit le] a sta te p ri so n er to a h ea ri n g w h en h e is tran sfe rred to a p ri so n the c o n d it ion s o f w h ich a re s ubs t ant i al l yl es s favor abl e t o the pr i s oner , abs enta s t at e l aw orpr act i ce c ondi t i oni ng s u c h tr a n s f

e rs o n p ro o f

o f s e ri o u s m is c o n d u c t o r th e o c c u rr e n c e o f o th e r e v e n ts .” M e a c h u m v . F a n o , 4 2 7 U .S . 2 1 5 , 2 1 6 (1 9 7 6 ). A d d iti o n a lly , C layt o n h a s n o sta te r ig h t in re g a rd s to h is p lac e o f

in c a rc e ra tio n . S e e T w ym a n v . C risp , 5 8 4 F .2 d 3 5 2 , 3 5 6 -5 7 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 7 8 ) (no ti n g that b ec au se O k laho m a law an d D O C reg u lat ion s reg ard ing tr an sfe rs and s ecur i tycl as s i fi cat i ons pr ovi de br oad di s cr et i on t o the D O C , no due pr oces s hear i ng i s r equi r ed i n conj unct i on w i th a tr ans fer ) ; M orr i s v. M eac hum , 718 P. 2d 1354, 1356 ( O kl a. 1986) ( not i ng thati nm at e has no s ubs t ant i al per s onal r i ghtt o s i tus of c o n f in e m e n t) .- 8-

C l ayt on cl ai m s thathi s tw enty - s i x days t ayi n H - uni tatO SP i m pos ed an a typi cal a n d s ig n if

ic a n t h a rd s h ip o n h im w h e n c o m p a re d to h is p ri o r c o n d itio n o f c o n f in e m e n t. P riso n c o n d iti o n s th a t “im p o se [ ] a typ ica l an d sig n if ica n t h a rd sh ip o n th e in m a te in r el at i on t o the or di naryi nci dent s of pr i s on l i fe” m aycr eat e a l i bertyi nt er es tpr ot ect ed by th e d u e p ro c e ss c lau se . T ru jil lo , 4 6 5 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 5 . H o w e v e r, C layt o n h a s f a iled to pr ovi de s uffi ci entfac t s t o s upportthi s al l egat i on. I ns t ead, he makes onl yvague a nd concl us orys t at ement s thatH - uni ti s “O kl ahoma’ s i nfamous dungeon, ” a “ hol e, ” and pl ace m enther e cons t i tut es the O D O C ’ s “har s hes t , i nhum ane, puni s hm ents t atus . ” A p p e lla n t B ri e f

a t 2 -4 . B es i des fai l i ng t o art i cul at e w hat , i f any , condi t i ons on H - uni ti m pos ed a s i g n i f i c a n th a r d s h i p o n h i m, Cl a yt o n f a i l s t o a l l e g e h o w h i s c o n f i n e me n tc o n d i t i o n s i n Huni tdi ffe r ed fr om the condi t i ons of otherpr i s oner s , r ender i ng hi s confi nement“atypi cal . ” See Truj i l l o, 465 F. 3d at1225 ( r ever s i ng di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al of compl ai ntas f r i v o l o u s w h e n d e f

e n d a n ta l l e g e d h e s p e n t7 5 0 d a ys i n s e g r e g a t i o n c o m p a r e d t o 1 8 0 d a ys otheri nm at es w er e s egr egat ed) . C l ayt on does notpr ovi de anyfac t s expl ai ni ng w hythe dur at i on ordegr ee of

hi s confi nementi n H - uni tw as atypi calors i gni fi cant l yhar s h w hen compar ed t o otherpr i s oner s . R ather , the onl yevi dence i n the r ecor d compar i ng C layton ’s si tuation to o ther inm ates a t O S P co m es f rom the a ff

idav ito f Ja n e S tand ifi rd ( “St andi fi r d”) , the deputyw ar den of O SP, w ho as s ert s thati nm at es bei ng hel d atO SP for co u rtd ates a re ro u ti n elyp lace d in H -un it . C layton h im self c o n ce d ed that so m e p ri so n ers th a t ar e re lea se d to c o u rt, alth o u g h a rg u a b lyo n lya sm a ll p e rc e n tag e , are h o u se d in H -u n it- 9-

a t O S P . B ecaus e C l ayt on’ s admi ni s tr at i ve s egr egat i on w as of a r el at i vel ys hortdur at i on a n d h e f a ils to a ss e rt a n yf

a c ts in su p p o rt o f

h is c o n c lu so rya lleg a tio n th a t co n f in e m e n t in H - uni tw as an atypi caland s i gni fi canthar ds hi p, w e conc l ude thatthe di s tr i ctcourtdi d not err in d ism issi n g h is suit . S ee G aine s, 2 9 2 F . 3 d at 12 2 6 (no ti n g that d isci p li n ary s egr egat i on forl es s than s eventy - fi ve day s m i ghtfai l as a matt erof l aw t o s at i s fy “atypi cal and s i gni fi cant ” r equi r ementand ther efor e mi ghtm er i tdi s m i s s al on compl ai nt al one) . Si m i l ar l y , C l ayt on fai l ed t o al l ege a nyfac tual s upportforhi s bal d as s ert i ons of r et al i at i on. See Sel f v. C rum , 439 F. 3d 1227, 1230 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( not i ng that “[u] ns ubs t ant i at ed al l egat i ons carryno pr obat i ve w ei ghti n s um m aryj udgm ent p roc ee d ing s” a n d d o n o t create a g en u ine issu e o f m aterial fa ct). B ec au se C laty o n ’s f e d e r a l c l a i ms h a v e n o me r i t , we n e e d n o tr e a c h h i s s t a t e l a w c o n tr a c tc l a i m. B a s e d o n th e f

o re g o in g , w e A F F IR M th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M aryB eck Bri s coe C i r cui tJ udge