UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

MARTEL WHITE, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

C/O ELIZABETH STEPHENSON; CAPT. 

CLIFFORD GULLIFORD, #10334, 

 Defendants - Appellees,

and 

LT. ELIZABETH WOOD, #13057; 4 

UNNAMED UNKNOWN 

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS AT 

BUENA VISTA CORRECTIONAL 

FACILITY, 

 Defendants.

No. 20-1229

(D.C. No. 1:19-CV-00875-RBJ-NRN)

(D. Colo.)

_________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________

Before MATHESON, KELLY, and EID, Circuit Judges.**

_________________________________

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines 

of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for 

its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. ** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 7, 2021

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court
2

Plaintiff-Appellant Martel White, a state inmate appearing pro se, appeals from 

the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights action seeking damages. 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983; White v. Stephenson, No. 19-cv-00875, 2020 WL 2832380 (D. Colo. June 1, 

2020), adopting in part 2020 WL 4511179 (Mar. 24, 2020). Mr. White’s amended 

complaint alleged (1) cruel and unusual punishment based a failure to prevent an 

attack on him by rival gang members, (2) violations of the Fourteenth Amendment 

based on defendants’ failure to initiate and follow the established procedure for 

placing him in protective custody, and (3) excessive force in defendants returning 

Mr. White to general population and in the use of pepper spray in breaking up a fight 

in which Mr. White was the victim. Defendants moved to dismiss or in the 

alternative for summary judgment.

The district court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and 

dismissed all claims and the action with prejudice. The district court determined that 

Mr. White’s official capacity claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity 

and that the John Doe defendants were properly dismissed for want of specific facts 

demonstrating excessive force. As for the remaining claims, the district court granted 

the named defendants qualified immunity on the grounds that the law was not clearly 

established.

On appeal, Mr. White raises some twenty-three issues in his brief. He objects 

to various procedural steps in the course of the lawsuit, takes issue with the district 

court’s statement of various facts, and contests whether the district court got it right 

that the law was not clearly established. He argues that he has shown constitutional 
3

violations given clearly established law, some of which should be obvious without 

citations to specific cases. We have reviewed these issues raised and affirm the 

district court for substantially the same reasons it relied upon.

AFFIRMED. We grant Mr. White’s motion to proceed IFP and remind him 

that he is obligated to continue making partial payments until the entire fee has been 

paid. 

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge