*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except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 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 4/18/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

ERNEST TRUMAN STANTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

KATIE DOLTON, ARISTEDES

ZAVARAS, and ROY ROMER,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-1294

(D.C. No. 95-S-1390)

(Dist. Colo.)

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.

Mr. Ernest Truman Stanton filed this pro se action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming prison officials Kathie Dolton,

Aristedes Zavaras, and Roy Romer as defendants. Mr. Stanton
-2-

alleged Ms. Dolton placed conditions on his employment as an

inmate law clerk, increased the workload at his facility, thereby

limiting his time to conduct legal research, and questioned him

regarding his medical condition, all in violation of his due

process rights. Mr. Stanton further alleged Ms. Dolton placed

him in segregation and placed arbitrary and capricious conditions

on his employment, both in violation of his equal protection

rights. Mr. Stanton also alleged the law library was inadequate

because the materials were archaic and outdated, in violation of

his right of timely access to the courts. The district court

dismissed Mr. Stanton’s claims against Mr. Zavaras and Mr. Romer

because he did not allege their personal participation, and

dismissed his claims against Ms. Dolton as legally frivolous

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Mr. Stanton appeals, and we affirm.

We review a district court’s determination of frivolousness

under section 1915(d) for an abuse of discretion. Denton v.

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 34 (1992). A complaint may be deemed

frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in

fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Legally

frivolous claims include “claims of infringement of a legal

interest which clearly does not exist.” Id. at 327.

In the present case, Mr. Stanton does not identify a statute

or regulation that entitles him to a prison job and “[w]ithout

such a statute, prisoners do not have a constitutional right to
-3-

employment.” Templeman v. Gunter, 16 F.3d 367, 370 (10th Cir.

1994). Accordingly, Mr. Stanton’s constitutional claims

regarding his inmate law clerk position are without merit.

“The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

guarantees state inmates the right to ‘adequate, effective, and

meaningful’ access to the courts.” Petrick v. Maynard, 11 F.3d

991, 994 (10th Cir. 1993)(quoting Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817,

822 (1977)). States must affirmatively assure all inmates

“assistance in the preparation and filing of legal papers.” Id.

States may fulfill this duty by providing law libraries or

assistance from persons trained in the law. Id. “Although this

constitutional obligation does not require states to afford

inmates unlimited access to a library, and there exists no rigid

or static formula to assess whether a prison library’s resources

pass constitutional muster, states must provide inmates with ‘a

reasonably adequate opportunity’ to present their legal claims.” 

Id. (citations omitted).

Mr. Stanton alleged in his complaint that most of the legal

materials in the law library are “archaic and outdated,” as well

as various other constitutional violations. We agree with the

district court that these allegations, without more, are vague

and conclusory and therefore without merit. See Petrick, 11 F.3d

at 995-96 (“Of course, a prisoner must do more than make a mere

conclusory allegation of need for unspecified or unlimited
1 Mr. Stanton raises the following issues for the first time

on appeal: (1) he was transferred, subsequent to the district

court’s order, to a facility without a law library; however, he

also states he received law library time subsequent to his

transfer, Aplt. Br. at 4; (2) with respect to the facility at

issue in the complaint, the law library was intermittently opened

and closed during the period from December 1994 through June

1995, Aplt. Br. at 4, and did not contain certain legal materials

which he listed in his brief, Aplt. Br. at 10; and (3) he was

discriminated against on the basis of his religion.

-4-

materials. . . . The prisoner must also articulate a need for the

requested material with sufficient particularity so that the

prisoner’s need may be balanced against legitimate penological

interests.”). We note Mr. Stanton stated in his complaint he

receives approximately seven and one-half hours per week of law

library time as well as access to a paralegal during day-shift

hours.

Mr. Stanton raises additional factual and legal issues for

the first time1 which we decline to consider on appeal. See

Oyler v. Allenbrand, 23 F.3d 292, 299 n.8 (10th Cir. 1994).

We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. The

mandate shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephanie K. Seymour

Chief Judge