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 s u b m itte d w ith o u t o ra l a rg u m e n t. 

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

### A u gu s t30,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT G E O R G E W . S T E F F E Y , J R .,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. DAVI D OR M AN, M I KE M UL L I N, K. W I NG O, M ELOD Y B RY AN T, GAR Y GI BS ON, RO N WARD, M E L IN D A G U IL F O Y L E ., in th e ir i nd i vidual and offi ci al capac i t i es,

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 05- 7064

AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT F O R T H E E A S T E R N D I S T R I C T O F O K L A H O MA

( D. C. No. 0 2 - CV - 4 9 7 - P) S ub m i t t ed o n the bri efs: * G eor ge W . St effey , J r . , Pr o Se. G r egoryT hom as M et cal fe, A s s i s t antA t t or neyG ener al , O kl ahoma A t t orney G eneral ’s O ffi ce, O klahom a C i t y , O klahom a, for D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees.T h e ru le, O S P -1 2 0 2 3 0 -0 2 , sta tes in re lev a n t p a rt: 1 X . Per s ons on an i nm at e vi s i t i ng l i s t , fami l ym ember s noton an i nm at e vi s i t i ng l i s t , orknow n acqua i nt ance s of anyi nm at e maynot send m on i es i nto the fa ci l i tyfor dep osi ti n an otheri nm at e’s t rust f u n d a c c o u n t. X I. W h e n th e re is re a so n to b e liev e th a t an in m a te, in c o llu sio n w ith fa m ilym e m b e rs, f

rie n d s, o r k n o w n a c q u a in tan c e s, is a ttem p tin g to (c o n tin u e d ...) -2- B efor e P O R F IL IO , BA LD OCK , and EBEL , C i rcui tJudg es. EBEL , C i r cui tJ udge.

Pl ai nt i ff G eor ge W . St effey , an O kl ahoma st at e pr i s onerappea r i ng pr o s e, fi l ed a 42 U . S. C . § 1983 ci vi l r i ght s compl ai ntagai ns tpr i s on offi ci al s al l egi ng t hatt heydepr i ved hi m of hi s pr opertyi n vi ol at i on of hi s cons t i tut i onal due pr oces s r i ght s w hen theyconfi s cat ed a moneyor ders entt o hi m . T he di s tr i ct c o u rt g ra n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f d e fe n d a n ts . W e a ffir m . BA CK GR OUND Th e fo l l o wi n g i s u n d i s p u t e d . M r . S t e ffe ywa s i n c a r c e r a t e d a tt h e Ok l a h o ma St at e Peni t ent i ary( O SP) a tal l t i m es r el evantt o thi s appea l . O SP pri s on rul es pr ohi bi tan i nm at e fr om r ece i vi ng m oneyfr om fami l ym ember s of anyother i nm at e, and perm i tO SP t o confi s cat e anym oni es s entt o an i nm at e i n vi ol at i on of t hes e rul es . Pam G rubb, t he mot herof an O kl ahoma D epart m entof C or r ect i ons

1( . . . cont i nued) 1 ci r cumventfac i l i t yrul es bytr ans ferr i ng funds t o anotheri nm at e, the i ncomi ng m oneyor der s w i l l be hel d unt i l a thor ough i nves t i gat i on h a s b e e n c o n d u c ted . If th e in v e stig a tio n re v e a ls th a t an a ttem p t to ci r cumventfac i l i t yrul es has occurr ed, the moneyor der s w i l l be c o n s id e re d c o n tr a b a n d a n d w ill n o t b e re tu rn e d to th e s e n d e r. X I I . I n t he eve nta moneyor deri s confi s cat ed as contr aband, the i nt ended r eci pi enti nm at e and the s enderw i l l be not i fi ed i n w r i t i ng of th e a c tio n b yth e p e rs o n w h o s to p p e d th e tr a n s fe r. R . D oc. 21, E x. D , at2. -3- ( O D O C ) i nm at e, s entM r . St effeya fi fty - dol l arm oneyor deratO SP. O SP pri s on offi ci al s i m m edi at el ynot i fi ed M r . St effeythatM s . G rubb’ s name appear ed on a pr i s on l i s tof O D O C fami l ym ember s , thatthe moneyor derther efor e vi ol at ed O SP-120230- 02, and, as a r es ul t , had bee n confi s cat ed as contr aband. T he funds w er e neve rdepos i t ed i nt o M r . St effey ’ s i nm at e trus tacc ount , norw er e they re tu rn e d to M s . G ru b b . M r . St effeyus ed the O SP pri s on gr i evanc e pr oces s t o chal l enge the c o n fisc a tio n . A f

ter e x h a u stin g h is a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies , M r. S teffe yfiled h is § 1983 ci vi l r i ght s compl ai ntal l egi ng thatthe conf i s cat i on of thes e funds depr i ved hi m of hi s pr opert yi n vi ol at i on of hi s due pr oces s r i ght s . T he di s tr i ct c o u rt d ism iss e d th e c o m p lain t ag a in st th e O D O C a n d th e in d iv id u a l d e fe n d a n ts in t hei roffi ci al capa ci t i es beca us e thes e defendant s ar e i m m une fr om s ui tundert he E lev e n th A m e n d m e n t. Ita lso d ism iss e d th e c laim s a g a in st n u m e ro u s d e fe n d a n tsA not herr emai ni ng defe ndant , G aryG i bs on, t he form erO SP w ar den, di ed 2 on Sept ember12, 2003. D efe ndant s ’ couns el fi l ed a s ugges t i on of dea th pur s uant t o Fed. R . C i v. P. 25( a) ( 1) , and M r . St effeydi d notfi l e a mot i on fors ubs t i tut i on o f p a rt ie s . A c c o rd in g ly, M r. G ib s o n is d is m is s e d . S e e id . -4- bas ed on a l ack of

per s onal part i ci pat i on i n the al l eged vi ol at i ons . M r . St effey d o e s n o t a p p e a l th e s e ru lin g s . T he onl y r emai ni ng defe ndant w as D avi d O r m an, t he O SP offi ci al w ho 2 c o n fisc a ted th e f

u n d s. T h e d istric t co u rt ru led th a t M r. O rm a n w a s e n tit led to qual i fi ed i m m uni t ybeca us e hi s act i ons di d notvi ol at e M r . St effey ’ s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . T he courtrul ed i tw as undi s put ed thatt he moneyor dervi ol at ed O SP-120230- 02, beca us e M r . St effeyadmi t t ed dur i ng hi s admi ni s tr at i ve g ri ev an ce p roc ee d ing s tha t M s. G rub b w as th e m o ther o f a n O D O C inm ate. I t rul ed the moneyor derw as , t her efor e, contr aband upon r ece i ptatt he pr i s on, t hat M r . St effeyneveracqui r ed anypr opertyi nt er es ti n the contr aband moneyor der a n d , thu s, h a d n o rig h t to a n yp re d e p riv a tio n d u e p ro c e ss h e a rin g w ith re sp e c t to th e c o n fis c a tio n o f

th o s e f u n d s . M r. S te ffe ya p p e a ls th is ru lin g .

A N A L Y S IS

“ 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 t h e s a me s t andar d t he di s t r i ctcour ts houl d appl yunderFed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) . ” C am ugl i a v. C i t y of A l buquer que , 4 4 8 F .3 d 1 2 1 4 , 1 2 1 8 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). B ec au se M r. O rm an asse rt ed a q u ali fied im m u n ityd efen se, ho w ev er, th e su m m ary j udgm ents t andar ds ar e s ubj ectt o a s om ew hatdi ffe r entanal y s i s fr om other-5-

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t ru lin g s . See Light on v. Uni v. of Utah , 209 F. 3d 1213, 1221 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) . “Q ual i fi ed i m m uni tyi s des i gned t o s hi el d publ i c off i ci al s fr om l i abi l i t yand ens ur e thaterr oneous s ui t s do noteven go t o tr i al . ” A l br ightv. R odr iguez , 51 F. 3d 1531, 1534 ( 10th C i r . 1995) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . W hen a defe ndantbas es a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm enton the defens e of qua l i fi ed im m u n ity , the p lain tiff m u st s h o w th a t th e d e fe n d a n t’s a c tio n s v io late d a sp e c ific s t atut or yorcons t i tut i onal r i ght , and that“the cons t i tut i onal ors t atut or yr i ght s t he defe ndantal l egedl yvi ol at ed w er e cl ear l yes t abl i s hed atthe t i m e of the conduc tat i s s ue. ” Id . D u e P ro c e ss C laim A due pr oces s cl ai m underthe Four t eenth A m endmentcan onl ybe m a in tain e d w h e re th e re e x ists a c o n stitu tio n a llyc o g n iza b le lib e rtyo r p ro p e rty in te re s t w ith w h ic h th e s ta te h a s in te rfe re d . See Bd. of R egents of

Stat e C ol ls . v. R o th , 40 8 U . S . 56 4, 56 9 (197 2) ( “T he requ i rem ents of p rocedu ral du e process a p p lyo n lyto th e d e p riv a tio n o f in ter e sts e n c o m p a ss e d b yth e F o u rte e n th A m endment ’ s pr ot ect i on of l i ber tyand pr operty . ”) . T he di s tr i ctcour tanal y zed M r. S teffe y ’s p ro p e rtyin ter e st c laim u n d e r th e a n a lytica l f ra m e w o rk se t fo rth in G i l l i han v. Shi l l i nger , 8 7 2 F .2 d 9 3 5 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 9 ) (p e r c u ria m ). T h e re , this c o u rt h e ld th a t, ab se n t co m p e lli n g re a so n s to th e c o n tra ry , p riso n e rs a re e n tit led to a p re d e p riv a tio n h e a rin g b e fo re a p riso n c a n d e p riv e th e in m a te o f p ro p e rty p u rs u a n t to a n a ffir m a tiv e ly es ta b lis h e d p o lic y . Id . at 93 9 -40 . T h e d istri ct co u rtT h e S e c o n d a n d F if th C irc u its h a v e h e ld th a t Sa n d in a p p lies o n lyto lib e rty 3 in te re s ts c la im s . Handber r y v. Thomps on , 446 F. 3d 335, 353 n. 6 ( 2d C i r . 2006) (“ Sandi n w as conce r ned w i t h t he pr operdefi ni t i on of lib e rty i nt er es t s , not p ro p e rtyin ter e sts .”); B ulgerv. U. S. B ur eau of P r is ons , 6 5 F . 3 d 4 8 , 5 0 (5th C ir . (c o n tin u e d ...) -6- di s t i ngui s hed G i l l i han a n d its p re d e p riv a tio n -h e a rin g re q u ire m e n t o n th e b a sis t hatM r . St effeyhad no pr oper t yi nt er es ti n the moneyor derbeca us e i tw as contr aband. T he r equi r ementi n G i l l i han o f a p re d e p riv a tio n h e a rin g is re lev a n t o n lyif a n in m a te fir s t d e m o n s tr a te s th a t h e h a s a p ro te c te d p ro p e rt yin te re s t, id . at938, and her e w e conc l ude thatM r . St effeyhad no pr opertyr i ghtpr ot ect ed bythe F o u rt ee n th A m en d m en t t o rec eive a c o n tr ab an d m o n eyo rde r w h il e in p ri so n . In Sandi n v. C onner , 5 1 5 U . S . 4 7 2 (19 9 5 ), d ec ided af ter G i l l i han , the S u p rem e C o u rt hel d t hata depr i vat i on occa s i oned bypr i s on condi t i ons ora pr i s on r egul at i on do es not r each p rot ect ed li bertyi nter estst atus and requi re pr oced ural du e process p ro tec tio n u n les s it im p o se s a n “ 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 r el at i on t o t he or di naryi nci dent s of pr i s on l i fe. ” Sa n d in , 5 1 5 U .S . at 4 8 4 . T h is cour thas rul ed thatpr opert yi nt er es tcl ai m s bypr i s oner s ar e al s o t o be r evi ew ed u n d er Sa n d in’s a typ ic a l- a n d -s ig n ific a n t- d e p ri v a tio n a n a lysis . C o sc o v . U p h o ff , 1 9 5 F .3 d 1 2 2 1 , 1 2 2 4 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ); s ee als o Mur dock v . Was hi ngt on , 193 F. 3d 5 1 0 , 5 1 3 (7 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (s u g g e stin g b u t n o t ex p re ss lyh o ld in g th a t Sa n d in appl i es to p rop ertyinterest claim s b rou g h t byp ri so n ers); A bdul

- Wadood v. Nathan , 91 F. 3d 1023, 1025 ( 7t h C i r . 1996) ( s ame) . W e rul ed i n C os co t hat , “[t ] he 3( . . . cont i nued) 3 1995) ( decl i ni ng t o ext end Sa nd i n’s “ a typ ica l an d sig n ifica n t h a rd sh ip ” a n a ly sis t o pr oper t ycl ai m s bypr i s oner s ) . A s w e not ed i n C os co , the S ix th a n d N in th C irc u its h a v e su g g e ste d , b u t n o t ex p licitlyh e ld , tha t Sa n d in d o es n o t go v ern p ri s o n e r p ro p e rt yin te re s t c la im s . C os co , 1 9 5 F . 3 d at 12 2 3 n . 3 (cit ing ca ses). -7- Supr eme C our tm andat e s i nce Sa n d in is th a t h e n c e fo rth w e a re to re v iew p ro p e rty and l i ber t yi nt er es tcl ai m s ar i s i ng fr om pr i s on condi t i ons byas ki ng w hetherthe pr i s on condi t i on compl ai ned of pr es ent s ‘ the type of a typi cal , s i gni fi cant d e p r i v a t i o n i n w h i c h a S t a t e m i g h tc o n c e i v a b l y c r e a t e a l i b e r ty [ o rp r o p e r ty] i nt er es t . ’ ” Id . at1224 ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal , quot i ng Sa n d in , 5 1 5 U .S . a t 4 8 6 ). “[L] aw ful i ncar cer at i on br i ngs aboutthe nec es s aryw i thdr aw al orl i m i t at i on of m anypr i vi l eges and r i ght s , a r etr act i on j us t i fi ed bythe cons i der at i ons under l y i ng ourpenal s y s t em. ” Sa n d in , 515 U . S. at485 ( ci t at i on and quot at i on o m itt e d ). T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s lo n g re c o g n ize d th a t an in m a te’ s rig h t to rec eive m ail an d o ther p ac k ag es m ayb e li m it ed b yp ri so n reg u lat ion s tha t are re a s o n a b ly re la te d to le g itim a te p e n o lo g ic a l in te re s ts . S e e Th o rn b u rg h v . A b b o tt , 4 9 0 U .S . 4 0 1 , 4 1 6 (1 9 8 9 ) (h o ld in g th a t p riso n a u th o rities h a v e b ro a d d isc re tio n in re g u latin g th e e n tryo f m a ter ial in to a p riso n ); Turne rv. Saf l ey , 482 U . S. 78, 9 1 -9 2 (1 9 8 7 ) (u p h o ld in g p riso n re stric tio n s o n m a il as re a so n a b lyre late d to leg iti m a te s e c u rityc o n c e rn s); B el lv. Wolf ish , 441 U . S. 520, 550, 555 ( 1979) ( uphol di ng ban on i nm at e r ece i ptof ce r t ai n har dback books and pac kages cont ai ni ng per s onal pr opert yand food i n or dert o count err i s k of s m uggl ed c o n tr a b a n d ).-8-

Pr i s on offi ci al s atO SP have a l egi t i m at e i nt er es ti n contr ol l i ng both the amount and s our ce of funds r ece i ved byi nm at es . O SP pre s ent ed evi dence that O SP-120230- 02 s erves i t s l egi t i m at e penol ogi cal i nt er es ti n pr event i ng i nm at es f ro m u sin g th e ir fa m ilym e m b e rs to p a yo ff th e ir d ru g , g a m b lin g o r o th e r d e b ts to fel l ow i nm at es , orfr om ext or t i ng m oneyfr om an i nm at e’ s fami l yw i th thr eat s of harm . Subst ant i al defe r ence i s gi ven t o the pr ofes s i onal j udgm entof pr i s on admi ni s t r at or s beca us e theyhave “ s i gni fi cantr es pons i bi l i tyfordefi ni ng the leg iti m a te g o a ls o f

[ th e p riso n ] a n d fo r d e ter m in in g th e m o st a p p ro p ria te m e a n s to acc om pl i s h t hem. ” O v e rto n v . B a zz e tta , 539 U . S. 126, 132 ( 2003) . M r . St effey a s s e rt s n o le g a l o r e v id e n tia ry c h a lle n g e to th e v a lid ity o f O S P -1 2 0 2 3 0 -0 2 . O ver t on , 539 U . S. at132 ( hol di ng thatbur den i s noton the s t at e t o pr ove the v ali d ityo f th e p ri so n reg u lat ion , b u t on the p ri so n er to d ispro v e it ). W e the refo re concl ude thatO SP-120230- 02 i s r eas onabl yr el at ed t o a l egi t i m at e penol ogi cal i nt er es tand i s a val i d r es t r i ct i on on M r . St effey ’ s r i ghtt o r ece i ve moneyfr om c e rt a in o u ts id e s o u rc e s . See O ver t on , 5 3 9 U .S . a t 1 3 2 . L i kew i s e, M r . St effeyhas pr es ent ed no evi dence orauthor i tyforthe pr opos i t i on t hatt he depr i vat i on her e w as an “a typi cal and s i gni fi canthar ds hi p” t hats ubj ect ed hi m t o condi t i ons m uch di ffe r entfr om thos e or di nar i l yexper i ence d b yin m a tes se rv in g th e ir se n ten c e s in th e c u sto m a ryfa sh io n . A s n o ted a b o v e , itis w el l - es t abl i s hed thatpr i s ons have br oad di s cr et i on i n r egul at i ng the entryof m at er i al s i nt o pr i s on. M or e s peci fi cal l y , the Supr eme C our tl ong ago-9-

c h a ra c ter ize d th e re c e ip t o f m o n e ya s o n e typ e o f c o n tra b a n d th a t p riso n o fficia ls c o u ld le g itim a te ly b a n . S e e B e ll , 441 U . S. at551, 559 ( uphol di ng pr i s on r e g u l a t o r y b a n o n i n m a t e r e c e i p to f p a c k a g e s b e c a u s e “ [ s ] m u g g l i n g o f m o n e y, d rug s, w ea p o n s, an d o ther c o n tr ab an d is al l t o o co m m o n an o cc u rren ce ”). D ec isi o n s fro m this an d o ther c ir cu it s d em o n str ate tha t th e se izure an d fo rfe itu re o f c u rre n c ya s c o n tra b a n d is a typ ica l in c id e n t o f p riso n life , an d is n o t a s ig n ific a n t p ro p e rt yin te re s t d e p ri v a tio n . See Cosco , 195 F. 3d at1224 ( hol di ng t hat r egu l at i on of the t ype an d q uan t i tyof p ers on al propertyi nm at es m aypo sses s in the irce ll s is a n o t an a typ ical, sign ifi ca n t hard sh ip o f p ri so n li fe ); Har r is v. Fo rsy th , 735 F. 2d 1235, 1236 ( 11th C i r . 1984) ( hol di ng thatpr i s on’ s confi s cat i on o f c o n tra b a n d c u rre n c yis re a so n a b le r e stric tio n o n p ro p e rtyrig h ts); Lyon v. Far r i er , 7 3 0 F .2 d 5 2 5 , 5 2 7 (8 th C ir. 1 9 8 4 ) (ru lin g th a t in m a te “ c a n n o t se rio u sly ar gue” he has a pr ot ect ed pr opertyi nt er es ti n contr aband pe r s onal pr opertyfound in c e ll); Su l l i van v. Ford , 609 F. 2d 197, 198 ( 5th C i r . 1980) ( concl udi ng no due p roc ess v iolati o n w h ere p ri so n co n fisca ted c o n tr ab an d cu rren cyin ce ll ). N o r is it d ifficu lt t o c o n c lu d e th a t th e p ro p e rtyin ter e st in v o lv e d h e re is insign ifi ca n t. M r. S teffey ’s i n terest i n the fifty -do ll ar m o n eyo rde r w as n o m o re t han an i nchoat e, unr eal i zed e xpect at i on i n a gi ftof contr aband f unds . “To have a pr oper t yi nt er es ti n a bene fi t , a per s on cl ear l ym us thave mor e than an a bs tr act n e e d o rd e s i r e fo ri t . He mu s th a v e mo r e th a n a u n i l a t e r a l e x p e c t a t i o n o f i t . He m us t , i ns t ead, have a l egi t i m at e cl ai m of ent i t l ementt o i t . ” R o th , 408 U . S. atI n G i l l i han , w e s t at ed thati nm at es have a “pr opertyi nt er es t ” i n r ece i vi ng 4 m oneyfr om “fr i ends and fa m i l yout s i de the pr i s on. ” 872 F. 2d at938. T hat s t at ementappea r s t o be di ct a, how ever , beca us e i ti s notappar entfr om t he d e c is io n th a t a n ym o n ie s f ro m o u ts id e s o u rc e s w e re a t is s u e in th a t c a s e . G i l l i han i s al s o di s t i ngui s habl e fr om t hi s cas e bec aus e the moneyati s s ue ther e w as not c o n tr a b a n d . F in a lly, G i l l i han w a s d e c id e d b e fo re th is c o u rt h e ld in C os co , 1 9 5 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 4 , tha t th e p ro p e rty -in ter e st d u e -p ro c e ss rig h ts o f p riso n e rs a re to be det erm i ned bas ed on the natur e of the depr i vat i on i n acc or dance w i th the “atypi cal and s i gni fi cant ” depr i vat i on anal y s i s art i cul at ed i n Sa n d in . -10- 5 7 7 . It ca n n o t b e sa id th a t M r. S teffe yh a d a leg iti m a te c laim o f e n tit lem e n t to the m o n eyo rde r. 4 T hus , gi ven the val i di t yof the r egul at i on i n O SP-120230- 02, and the typ ica l, i n sig n ifica n t n a tu re o f th e d e p riv a tio n , w e c o n c lu d e th a t M r. O rm a n d id n o t v io late M r. S teffe y ’s r ig h ts u n d e r 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 endmentw hen i tconfi s cat ed the contr aband moneyor der . T her efor e, w e fi nd n o e rr o r i n th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s g ra n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. R eques tforA ppoi nt ed C ouns el M r . St effeyal s o cont ends t hatt he di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o appoi ntcouns el . T hi s cour t“r evi ew [s ] a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s r efus al t o appoi nt couns el foran i ndi gentpr i s oneri n a ci vi l cas e foran abus e of di s cr et i on. T he b u rd e n is o n th e a p p lica n t to c o n v in c e th e c o u rt th a t th e re is s u fficie n t m e rit to h is cl ai m t o w arr antt he appoi nt m entof couns el . ” Hi l lv. Sm i thK l i ne Beecham C or p. , 393 F. 3d 1111, 1115 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) ( quot at i on and ci t at i on om i t t ed) . I ti s not e n o u g h “ th a t h a v in g c o u n se l ap p o in ted w o u ld h a v e a ss iste d [ th e p riso n e r] in p re s e n tin g h is s tr o n g e s t p o s s ib le c a s e , [ a s ] t h e s a m e c o u ld b e s a id in a n yc a s e .”-11-

R ucks v. B oerger m ann , 57 F . 3d 97 8, 97 9 (10th C i r. 19 95 ). “O nlyi n those extr eme cas es w her e the l ack of couns el r es ul t s i n fundament al unfai rnes s w i l l t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on be overturned. ” Hill , 393 F. 3d at1115 ( quot at i on o m itted). In ev alua ti n g a p ri so n er’s req u est fo r ap p o inted co u n sel, the c o u rt s houl d cons i der“the mer i t s of the pr i s oner ’ s cl ai m s , the natur e and c om pl exi tyof t he fa ctual and l egal i s s ues , and the pr i s oner ’ s abi l i tyt o i nves t i gat e the fa ct s and pr es enthi s cl ai m s . ” Id . L a c k o f c o u n s e l in th is c a s e h a s n o t r e s u lte d in f u n d a m e n ta l u n fa ir n e s s . M r . St effey ’ s compl ai ntand pl eadi ngs i n the di s tr i ctcour tadequa t el ypr es ent ed t he fa ctual and l egal bas i s of hi s cl ai m and demonstr at ed thathe under s t ood the bas i cs of hi s due- pr oces s pr oper tyi nt er es tcl ai m . Fur ther , M r . St effeyw as g ra n te d th e lib e ra l tr e a tm e n t a c c o rd e d p ro s e litig a n ts . Hai nes v. Ker ner , 4 0 4 U .S . 5 1 9 , 5 2 0 -2 1 (1 9 7 2 ). T h e d istric t co u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g h is m o tio n fo r a p p o in ted c o u n se l. T h e jud g m en t of

the d istri ct co u rtis A F F IR M E D . M r. S teffey ’s o u t s t a n d i n g mo t i o n s a r e DE NI E D.