A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue c o n s is te n t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Jan u ary19,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT

J OH N H AD LEY FI SHER; KEN NETH LYNN FUNKHOU S ER; P l ai nti ffs-A pp el l ants , v. OKL AHOMA DE P AR T M E NT OF CO RRECTI ON S UN KN OW N STA TE AC T OR AND/ OR AC T OR S ; M I KE M ULLI N, W a r d e n ; KEN YO TT; BO BB Y B OONE ; RO N WARD; D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 7064 ( D . C. N o. CI V - 05 - 26 6- S) (E .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e TY M KOVI CH , AN DE RS ON , and BA LD OCK , C i rcui tJudg es. P l a i n t i ffs J o h n Ha d l e yF i s h e ra n d Ke n n e th Lyn n F u n k h o u s e r , Ok l a h o ma s t at e i nm at es pr ocee di ng pr o s e her e as i n the di s tr i ctcourt , appea l t he di s tr i ct cour t ’ s or dergr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entt o defe ndant s on thei rcl ai m s ar i s i ngMar t i nezv. A ar on , 570 F. 2d 317 ( 10th C i r . 1978) ( percur i am) ( appr ovi ng 1 o rd e r re q u irin g p riso n o fficia ls to in v e stig a te fa c ts s u rro u n d in g in m a te’ s c iv il r i ght s act i on t o cons t ructan admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d fr om w hi ch courtm ay d e te rm in e ju ri s d ic tio n a n d a s s e s s f ri v o lity).

- 2- under42 U . S. C . § 1983. W e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291 and a ffi r m. B ackgr ound E ach pl ai nt i ff i s s ervi ng a l i fe s ent ence form ur der . B oth ar e i ncar cer at ed att he O kl ahoma St at e Pr i s on ( O SP), and w er e hous ed atH U ni tdur i ng the r el evantt i m e. M r . Funkhouse rw r ot e a l et t ert o an O SP st aff cas e manager , and M r. F ish e r w ro te a t lea st tw o lette rs to h e r. P lain tiffs a ss e rt th a t d e fe n d a n ts c irc u late d th e lette rs a m o n g th e in m a tes in th e ir h o u sin g u n it, re su lti n g in b o th p la in tiffs b e in g la b e le d a s in fo rm a n ts o r s n itc h e s . P lain tiffs filed th e u n d e rly in g law su it alle g in g th a t d e fe n d a n ts v io late d th e ir cons t i tut i onal r i ght s byl abel i ng them as s ni t ches w i th the i nt entthattheybe i nj ur ed orki l l ed. Pl ai nt i ffs r eques t ed appoi nt m entof couns el , di s covery , and a pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on. A tt he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di r ect i on, defe ndant s fi l ed a Mar t i nez r epor t . Pl ai nt i ffs l at ers oughtt o s uppl ementt hei rpl eadi ngs t o i ncl ude 1 al l egat i ons t hatdefe ndant s r et al i at ed aga i ns tt hem for f i l i ng s ui t . T he di s tr i ct cour tgr ant ed defendant s ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entand deni ed al l other pendi ng m ot i ons . Pl ai nt i ffs appea l , ar gui ng ( 1) t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s entryof s um m aryj udgm entw as i m pr operbeca us e di s coveryhad notbeen a l l ow ed and- 3-

t her e exi s t ed di s put ed fa ct s , ( 2) the di s tr i ctcour tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng t hei rm ot i ons forappoi nt m entof couns el , foran i nj unct i on, and t o s uppl ement t hei rpl eadi ngs , ( 3) t he di s t r i ctcourterr ed i n deny i ng thei rcl ai m s underthe E igh th A m en d m en t, an d (4) the d istri ct co u rterred in d en y ing M r. F u n k h o u ser’s cl ai m s undert he Fi fth, E i ght h, and Four t eenth A m endment s and the Equal P ro te c tio n C la u s e . Standar ds of R evi ew

“ W e r e v i e w t h e g r a n to f s u mma ryj u d g me n td e n o v o , a p p l y i n g th e s a me s t andar d t he di s t r i ctcourts houl d appl yunderFed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) . ” St ef f ey v . O r m an , 461 F. 3d 1218, 1221 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . For di s pos i t i ve i s s ues on w hi ch the pl ai nt i ff w i l l bearthe bur den of pr oof attr i al , he m us t“go bey ond t he pl eadi ngs and des i gnat e s peci fi c fa ct s s o as t o m ake a show i ng suffici ent t o est abli sh t he ex i st ence o f an e l em ent es sent i al t o [h i s] case i n or dert o s ur vi ve s um m aryj udgm ent . ” Seal ock v . C ol or ado , 218 F. 3d 1205, 1 2 0 9 ( 1 0 t h C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( q u o t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) . “ [ E ] v i d e n c e , i n c l u d i n g t e s t i m o n y, m u s t b e b a s e d o n m o re th a n m e re s p e c u la tio n , c o nje c tu re , o r s u rm is e . U ns ubs t ant i at ed al l egat i ons carr yno pr obat i ve w ei ghti n s um m aryj udgm ent pr ocee di ngs . ” Sel

f v. C r um , 439 F. 3d 1227, 1230 ( 10th C i r . ) ( ci t at i on and q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ), cer t . deni ed , 1 2 7 S . C t. 1 3 1 (2 0 0 6 ). W e re v iew a d istric t co u rt’s d isc o v e ryru lin g s, its o rd e r d e n y in g lea v e to s uppl ementt he pl eadi ngs , and i t s or derdeny i ng appoi nt m entof couns el foran- 4-

a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . P r octer& G am bl e C o. v. Haugen , 427 F. 3d 727, 742- 43 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (d isc o v e ry ); Walkerv. Uni t ed Parce lSer v. , Inc. , 240 F. 3d 1268, 1 2 7 8 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) (le a v e to su p p lem e n t); St ef f ey , 461 F. 3d at1223 ( appoi nt m entof couns el ) . A n or derdeny i ng a pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on w i l l notbe di s turbed abs entan abus e of di s cr et i on, an err orof l aw , orcl ear l yerr oneous fa c tu a l fin d in g s . K i kum ur a v. Hur l ey , 2 4 2 F .3 d 9 5 0 , 9 5 5 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). B e c a u se p lain tiffs a re re p re se n tin g th e m se lv e s, w e lib e ra llyc o n stru e th e ir p le a d in g s ; h o w e v e r, w e d o n o t a c t a s th e ira d v o c a te . Hal lv. B el lm on , 935 F. 2d 1 1 0 6 , 1 1 1 0 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). C h a ra c ter izin gP la in tif fs a s In fo rm a n ts “A pr i s on offi ci al ’ s del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence t o a s ubs t ant i al r i s k of s er i ous harm t o an i nm at e vi ol at es t he Ei ghth A m endment . ” Far m erv. B r ennan , 511 U . S. 825, 828 ( 1994) ( quot at i on om i tt ed) . “[L] abel i ng an i nm at e a s ni t ch s at i s fi es t he Far m ersta n d a rd , an d c o n stitu tes d e lib e ra te in d iffe re n c e to th e sa fe ty of thati nm at e. ” B e n e fieldv . McD o w a ll , 241 F. 3d 1267, 1271 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ( ci t i ng No rth in g to n v . Ma rin , 1 0 2 F .3 d 1 5 6 4 , 1 5 6 7 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 )). B u t a pr i s onerm us tdo m or e than al l ege ge ner al l ythatvar i ous pr i s on offi ci al s vi ol at ed hi s r i ght s . “R ather , per s onal part i ci pat i on i s an es s ent i al al l egat i on i n a § 1983 cl ai m . ” Mi t chellv. Mayn ard , 80 F. 3d 1433, 1441 ( 10th C i r . 1996) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . I n addi t i on, “governm entoffi ci al s ar e notvi car i ous l yl i abl e forthe m isc o n d u c t o f

th e ir su b o rd in a tes . T h e re is n o c o n c e p t o f stric t su p e rv iso r liab ili tyA l t hough cour t s gener al l yperm i ta pl ai nt i ff t o us e unnamed defe ndant s , t he 2 pl ai nt i ff must“pr ovi de[] an ade quat e des cr i pt i on of s om e ki nd w hi ch i s s uffi ci ent t o i dent i fyt he per s on i nvol ved s o pr oces s eventual l ycan be s erved. ” R operv. G r ays on , 81 F. 3d 124, 126 ( 10t h C i r . 1996) . H er e, pl ai nt i ffs ’ amended compl ai nt di d notdes cr i be the per s on orper s ons t heycl ai m i nj ur ed them. A ccor di ngl y , t he d istric t co u rt d id n o t er r in e n ter in g su m m a ryju d g m e n t.

- 5- under§ 1983. ” Serna v. C olorado D ep’tof C orr. , 4 5 5 F . 3 d 1 1 4 6 , 1 1 5 1 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). In th eir am en d ed co m p lai n t, p lai n ti ffs all eg ed that their l ett ers w ere ci rcul at ed b ycert ai n u nk no w n p ri son em ploy ees and that the n am ed d efen dan t s, w ith the e x ce p ti o n o f d efen d an t Y o tt , w ere “c u lpab le fo r [the ir ] em p loy ee s[’] a c tio n s .” R . V o l. I , D o c . 2 2 a t 1 3 . D e fe n d a n ts a re n o t v ic a ri o u s ly lia b le . M or eover , pl ai nt i ffs pr offe r ed no al l egat i on orevi dence thatanyof the named defe ndant s , exce ptM r . Y ot t , per s onal l ypart i ci pat ed i n act i vi t i es thatvi ol at ed t heircon st i tuti on al ri gh t s. 2 P lain tiffs s u b m itt e d sw o rn sta tem e n ts f ro m n in e fe llo w re sid e n ts o f H U n it p u rp o rt in g to s u b s ta n tia te th e irc la im s . Id. D o c . 2 4 , A ffid a v its 1 1 -1 7 , 1 9 & 2 0 . I n t he affi davi t s , t he i nm at es s t at ed thatt heyhad hea r d aboutpl ai nt i ffs ’ l et t er s or th a t it w a s c o m m o n k n o w le d g e th a t p la in tiffs h a d w ri tte n to th e c a s e m a n a g e r. Som e of the affi ant s had r ead the l et t er s , w hi ch theyhad r ece i ved fr om other inm ates o r un iden ti fied so u rce s. A lth o u g h sev era l affiants stated th at th e lett ers w e re d iss e m in a ted th ro u g h th e p riso n ’s in ter n a l m a il sy ste m , this w a s m e re ly sp ec u lat ion ; no n e o f th e a ffiants h ad p erso n al kn o w ledg e o f h o w the lett ers w ere- 6-

rev ea led. W e d eterm ine th at th e a ffidav it s are insu ffici en t t o w ith stan d su m m ary jud g m en t bec au se th eyare b ase d o n eith er h ea rsayo r spe cu lat ion o r bo th, and are th e re fo re in a d m is s ib le . See Tr ef f v. G al etka , 74 F. 3d 191, 195 ( 10th C i r . 1996) ( hol di ng cont entand s ubs t ance of evi dence oppos i ng s um m aryj udgm entm us tbe admi s s i bl e, and “[ i ] nadmi s s i bl e hea r s ayevi dence i n an affi davi tw i l l notdefe at s um m aryj udgm ent ”) . A ccor di ngl y , pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s thatdefe ndant s ( exce pt M r. Y o tt ) vio lat ed their E igh th A m en d m en t r igh ts fo r l ab eli n g them sn it ch es w ere p ro p e rl yd e n ie d . A s t o M r . Y ot t , pl ai nt i ffs al l eged thathe r ead thei rl et t er s t o tw o danger ous i nm at es . R . V ol . I , D oc. 22 at5- 6, 8- 9. M r . Y ot ts t at ed i n hi s aff i davi tthathe i nves t i gat ed the cl ai m s m ade i n pl ai nt i ffs ’ l et t er s and, i n doi ng s o, he di s cus s ed the lett ers w ith the tw o inm ates b ec au se th eyw ere n am ed in the m . R . V o l. II, D o c. 28 , A tt ac h . 2 4 at 2-3 . P lai n ti ffs’ all eg ati o n s tha t M r. Y o ttrea d their l ett ers to the o ther inm ates inten d ing that tho se in m ates w o u ld injure p lai n ti ffs are concl us or y . A s s uch, t hey“ar e i ns uffi ci entt o puta mat er i al fac ti n di s put e. ” Ledoux v. D avi es , 961 F. 2d 1536, 1537 ( 10th C i r . 1992) . Pl ai nt i ffs have s ubm i t t ed no evi dence t hatM r . Y ot tact ed w i th the r equi s i t e “obdur at e and w ant on di s r egar d for[pl ai nt i ffs ’ ] s afe ty , ” Nor thi ngt on v. Jacks on , 973 F. 2d 1518, 1 5 2 5 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ). T h e re fo re , the d istric t co u rt p ro p e rlyg ra n ted su m m a ryin fa v o r o f M r. Y o tt o n th is c la im .- 7- R e m a in in gC la im s o

f B o th P la in tif

fs P lai n ti ffs m aintain th at th e d istri ct co u rterred in en teri n g su m m ary j udgm entbefor e theyhad conduc t ed di s covery . T hei rpr i m arycompl ai nt co n ce rns th eir requ est fo r D N A test ing o n the e n v elop es c o n tai n ing their l ett ers t hatw er e s entt o ot heri nm at es , w hi ch theyas s er tw oul d have r evea l ed the i dent i t yof the s enderors ender s . A s di s cus s ed above , pl ai nt i ffs ’ amended c o mp l a i n ta l l e g e d t h a ta l mo s ta l l o f th e a c t i o n a b l e c o n d u c twa s d o n e b yu n k n o wn per s ons . W e r ecogni ze thatpl ai nt i ffs had hoped di s coveryw oul d hel p them i den t i fyon e or m ore pri son em ploy ees theycou l d sue, butun der these ci r cumst ance s w her e the l et t er s coul d have be en di s s emi nat ed byanynum berof p eo p le, inclu d ing inm ates, w e find n o ab u se o f d iscreti o n in the d istri ct co u rt ’s d e c is io n fo re c lo s in g p la in tiffs ’ a tte m p t to “ u s e d is c o v e ry a s a fis h in g e x p e d itio n ,” A nthony v. Uni t ed Stat es , 6 6 7 F .2 d 8 7 0 , 8 8 0 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 8 1 ). Pl ai nt i ffs nextar gue thatt he di s tr i ctcour tm i s cons trued thei rcl ai m s for damages , i ncorr ect l yhol di ng t hattheyr eques t ed, butw er e notent i t l ed t o, damages forps y chol ogi cal i nj ur y . T he di s tr i ctcour thel d corr ect l ythatpl ai nt i ffs m a yn o t r e c o v e r fo r e m o tio n a l inju ry a b s e n t p h y s ic a l inju ry. See 4 2 U. S . C. § 1997e( e) . A l t hough § 1997e( e) does notbarr ecove ryof nom i nal orpuni t i ve d a m a g e s , Sear l es v. Van B ebber , 2 5 1 F . 3 d 8 6 9 , 8 7 9 , 8 8 0 -81 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ), pl ai nt i ffs ar e notent i t l ed t o anydamage aw ar d, gi ven the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s entryof s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in d e fe n d a n ts ’ fa v o r a n d o u r a ffir m a n c e .- 8-

Si m i l ar l y , w e fi nd no abus e of di s cr et i on i n the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or der d e n y i n g a p p o i n t me n to f c o u n s e l . Ha v i n g r e v i e we d th e r e c o r d a n d th e b r i e fs , we concl ude thatpl ai nt i ffs ’ cas e i s notone of “ thos e extr eme cas es w her e the l ack of couns el r es ul t [ed] i n fundament al unfai rnes s , ” St ef f ey , 461 F. 3d at1223 (q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). Pl ai nt i ffs al s o as s ertt hatt he di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n deny i ng thei rr eques tfor a pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on. T heys oughtt o enj oi n the defendant s fr om tr ans ferr i ng th e m to a n o th e r p riso n , se izin g th e ir leg a l m a ter ials , inte rfe rin g w ith th e ir a b ili ty to c o n fe r w ith e a c h o th e r, an d g e n e ra llyre talia tin g a g a in st th e m fo r fili n g th is act i on. R . D oc. 39, A t t ach. W e conc l ude thatpl ai nt i ffs have notm ade a nyof the r equi r ed s how i ngs - - t hatt heyar e l i kel yt o s ucce ed on a r et al i at i on cl ai m , that t heyw i l l s uffe ri r r epar abl e i nj ur yi f an i nj unct i on i s noti s s ued, thatthe t hr eat ened i nj ur yt o t hem out w ei ghs anyi nj ur yt o defe ndant s , orthatan inju n c tio n w o u ld n o t b e a v e rs e to th e p u b lic in te re s t. See K i kum ura , 242 F. 3d at 955. T her efor e, w e affi r m the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of a pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on. P lain tiffs f

u rth e r c h a llen g e th e d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n n o t to a llo w th e m to su p p lem e n t th e ir p lea d in g s. It a p p e a rs th a t th e re q u e ste d su p p lem e n t so u g h t to add a ne w cl ai m t hatdefe ndant s r et al i at ed aga i ns tpl ai nt i ffs forfi l i ng s ui t . U nder F e d . R . C iv . P . 1 5 (d ), “tria l co u rts [ h a v e ] b ro a d d isc re tio n to p e rm it a p a rtyto serve a sup plem ental pleadi ng set t i ng forth p ost -com plai nt transact i on s, occurr ence s orevent s . ” Walker , 2 4 0 F .3 d a t 1 2 7 8 . B u t at th e tim e th e m o tio n to- 9-

s uppl ementw as fi l ed, t he ca s e w as r eadyfordi s pos i t i on on s um m aryj udgm enton t he or i gi nal cl ai m s . U ndert hes e ci r cumst ance s , w e conc l ude thatthe di s tr i ct c o u rt d id n o t a b u s e its d is c re tio n in d e n y in g le a v e to s u p p le m e n t th e p le a d in g s . See i d. P l a i n t i f f Fu n kh o u s e r ’s R e ma i n i n gCla i ms M r . Funkhouse ras s ert s t hatdefe ndant s ’ cons i der at i on of hi s conductdur i ng a r i otatt he pr i s on i n 1985 w as i m pr operbeca us e he w as acqui t t ed of the cr i m i nal c h a rg e s b ro u g h t ag a in st h im . H e m a in tain s th a t d e fe n d a n ts v io late d h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts b yp lac in g h im in H U n it an d k e e p in g h im th e re b a se d o n h is par t i ci pat i on i n t he r i ot . A ccor di ng t o M r . Funkhouse r , H U ni tw as al s o know n as “R ed li n e,” an d w as u sed u n o ffici all yto p u n ish a n d co erc e h im an d o ther p ri so n ers b yk e e p in g th e m in u n c o n s titu tio n a lly h a rs h c o n d itio n s o f c o n fin e m e n t. M r. F u n k h o u se r c o n ten d s th a t h is tra n sfe r to H U n it b a se d o n h is par t i ci pat i on i n t he r i otw as a doubl e-j eopar dyvi ol at i on beca us e he w as acqui t t ed o f th e c rim in a l ch a rg e s. P riso n c las sifica tio n d o e s n o t im p lica te th a t F if th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t. C

f . Wi rs chi ng v. C ol or ado , 3 6 0 F . 3 d 1 1 9 1 , 1 2 0 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( h o ld in g d o u b le je o p a rd yn o t im p lic a te d in p ri s o n d is c ip lin a ry sa n c tio n s ). N ext , M r . Funkhouse rar gues thathi s tr ans fert o H U ni tw as puni t i ve, and t her efor e he w as ent i t l ed t o Four t eenth- A m endmentdue- pr oces s pr ocedur es b e fo re a n d d u rin g h is p lac e m e n t th e re . H e a lleg e s th a t th e c o n d iti o n s in H U n it w ere sim il ar to tho se in the a d m inistrati v e se g reg ati o n u n it , w h ere b yp ri so n ers- 10-

w er e deni ed cont actvi s i t s , a y ar d perm i t t i ng cont actw i th otheri nm at es , j obs , and pr ogr ams. H e al s o cl ai m s t hatt he condi t i ons i n H U ni ti m pos ed atypi cal and s i gn i fi c a ntha r ds hi p i n c ompa r i s on t o o the rc e l l bl oc ks a tO SP. In h is a ffid a v it, th e w a rd e n sta ted th a t (1 ) O S P p ro v id e d h o u sin g p rim a rily form axi m um - s ecur i t yoffe nder s , ( 2) al l i nm at es w er e affor ded veryl i m i t ed out doorexer ci s e, ( 3) H U ni t , N or thw es t1, w her e M r . Funkhouse rw as hous ed, w a s a g e n e ra l-p o p u latio n u n it, (4 ) n o n -c o n tac t v isitin g w a s im p o se d o n a ll i nm at es i n al l cel l bl ocks of H U ni t , as w el l as t o i nm at es cl as s i fi ed as l evel one an d tho se in U n it s D an d E , an d (5) w o rk a ssign m en ts w ere av ail ab le on a v ery lim ited b a sis a n d w e re a ss ig n e d b a se d o n c o n d u c t, attitu d e a n d a n a b ili tyto c o o p e ra te . R . V o l. I I, D o c . 2 8 , A tta c h . 2 2 a t 1 -3 . T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t S tate s m a yu n d e r c e rta in c irc u m sta n c e s c re a te lib e rtyin ter e sts w h ich a re p ro tec ted b yth e D u e P ro c e ss C lau se . B u t th e se in ter e sts w i l l be gene r al l yl i m i t ed t o fr eedom fr om r es tr ai ntw hi ch, w hi l e not excee ding t he sentence i n such an u nex pected m ann er as t o g i ve ri se t o p rot ect i on byt he D ue P rocess C l ause of i t s ow n fo rce, no nethel ess im p o se s a typ ica l an d sig n ifica n t h a rd sh ip o n th e in m a te in re latio n to t he or di naryi nci dent s of pr i s on l i fe. Sandi n v. C onner , 5 1 5 U .S . 4 7 2 , 4 8 3 -8 4 (1 9 9 5 ) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). D e fe n d a n ts d o n o t d isp u te M r. F u n k h o u se r’s c laim s a b o u t th e c o n d iti o n s in H U n it. In fa c t, t heyconfi r m t hos e cl ai m s . M r . Funkhouse rdi d notpr oduce fact s s how i ng that H U ni t ’ s condi t i ons w er e har s her , oreven di ffe r ent , than thos e i n other compar abl e uni t s i n t he maxi m um - s ecur i typr i s on. T her efor e, he w as notent i t l ed- 11-

to d u e p ro c e ss b e fo re o r d u rin g h is p lac e m e n t at H U n it. F inally , M r. F u n k h o u ser a sserts th at his eq u al pro tecti o n ri g h ts w ere v iolated w h en h e w as tran sfe rred to an d retaine d at H U n it , w h il e o ther p ri so n ers w i t h w orse i nst i tuti on al recor ds w ere not . H e argues on app eal that defend ants ’ resp o n ses to h is disco v eryreq u ests w o u ld h av e e stab li sh ed that o ther p ri so n ers w e re tr e a te d m o re fa v o ra b ly th a n h e .

“ E q u a l p ro tec tio n is e ss e n tiallya d ire c tio n th a t all p e rso n s s im ilarly s i tuat ed s houl d be tr eat ed al i ke. ” Fogl e v. P i ers on , 435 F. 3d 1252, 1260 (1 0 th C ir .) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ), cer t . deni ed , 1 2 7 S . C t. 6 7 5 (2 0 0 6 ). M r . Funkhouse rdoes notcl ai m t hathe w as tr eat ed di ffe r ent l ythan otheri nm at es beca us e he be l ongs t o a s us pectcl as s ; ther efor e, he musts how thathe w as s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed t o t he otheri nm at es “and thatthe di ffe r ence i n tr eatm entw as not‘ r eas onabl yr el at ed t o l egi t i m at e penol ogi cal i nt er es t s . ’ ” Id. at1261 ( quot i ng Turne rv. Saf

l ey , 4 8 2 U . S . 7 8 , 8 9 (19 8 7 )). T h e p la c e m e n t o f

p ri s o n e rs w ith in O S P is in p a rt d is c re tio n a ry. See O kl a. S tat. tit . 5 7 , § 1 3 8 (D ); s ee als o Wi ls on v. Jones , 4 3 0 F . 3 d 1 1 1 3 , 1 1 1 6 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (d e sc rib in g O k lah o m a ’s s tatu to ryc las sifica tio n sy ste m a s h a v in g b o th o bje c tiv e a n d s u bje c tiv e /d is c re tio n a ry c o m p o n e n ts ), cer t . deni ed , 127 S. C t . 158 ( 2006) . T he numer ous s ubj ect i ve fa ct or s contr i but i ng t o the cl as s i fi cat i on of pr i s oner s demonstr at es t he i m pl aus i bi l i tyof M r . Funkhouse r ’ s ar gum entthat “ther e ar e no r el evantdi ffe r ence s betw een [ hi m ] and otheri nm at es that- 12-

r eas onabl ym i ghtacc ountfort hei rdi ffe r enttr eatm ent . ” Fo g le , 435 F. 3d at1261 (q u o tatio n o m itt e d ). F o r th e sa m e re a so n , the d isc o v e ryM r. F u n k h o u se r w o u ld have r eques t ed aboutot herpr i s oner s ’ i ns t i tut i onal r ecor ds w oul d nothave pr oven hi s equal pr ot ect i on cl ai m . C ons equent l y , the di s tr i ctcourtpr oper l yr ej ect ed the e q u a l p ro te c tio n c la im w ith o u t a llo w in g d is c o v e ry. C oncl us i on Pl ai nt i ffs ’ pendi ng m ot i ons ar e D E N I E D . T he j udgm entof the di s tr i ct c o u r ti s AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt St ephen H . A nder s on C i r cui tJ udge