*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 3/6/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

ANDREW L. ROBINSON, )

)

Plaintiff-Appellant, )

) No. 95-1330

v. ) (D.C. No. 95-Z-241)

) (D. Colo.)

MIKE KEEN, Correctional Alternative )

Placement Services; CORRECTIONAL )

ALTERNATIVE PLACEMENT SERVICES, )

 INC., )

)

Defendants-Appellees. )

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, McKAY and LUCERO, 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.
-2-

Andrew L. Robinson, a state prisoner, brought this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 against the Colorado Correctional Alternative Placement Services (CAPS) and its

director, Mike Keen. Mr. Robinson was incarcerated in a halfway house under the CAPS

program for a period of approximately six months. He alleges that his constitutional

rights were violated when CAPS released copies of his personal, criminal, and medical

records to a private individual without Mr. Robinson’s knowledge or permission. The

copies were allegedly widely disseminated.

The district court dismissed Mr. Robinson’s complaint upon concluding that his

claims of constitutional violations and of resulting harm were vague and conclusory. The

court also concluded that Mr. Robinson failed to allege any facts tending to show Mr.

Keen’s personal participation in the alleged unconstitutional conduct.

To state a claim against a supervisor such as Mr. Keen, Mr. Robinson must allege

that Mr. Keen either personally directed the acts complained of or acquiesced in,

authorized, or approved of them. See Woodward v. City of Worland, 977 F.2d 1392,

1400 (10th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 3038 (1993). Mr. Robinson asserts only

that Mr. Keen must have been personally involved because the records could not have

been released without his approval. However, anyone with access to Mr. Robinson’s

records could have surreptitiously copied and released them without Mr. Keen’s

knowledge or acquiescence. Accordingly, Mr. Robinson has failed to adequately state a

claim against Mr. Keen.
1Mr. Robinson’s request for production of documents is denied. An appellate

court is required to decide the case on the record created in the court below. The time for

requesting production of documents was when the case resided in the district court.

-3-

Mr. Robinson has likewise failed to state a claim against CAPS. A governmental

entity may be liable only for action taken by authorized policy makers. See Pembaur v.

City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 480-81 (1986). Mr. Robinson’s claim against CAPS is

grounded on his claim against Mr. Keen, which we have held to be inadequate. The claim

against CAPS therefore fails as well.1

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephanie K. Seymour

Chief Judge