Court Opinion

ID: 9371467
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-16 16:00:39.572407+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:28.148733
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-1128     Document: 010110813861      Date Filed: 02/16/2023   Page: 1
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                       February 16, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                        Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                            Clerk of Court
  LARRY ALLEN THOMPSON,
  a/k/a Larry Allen Range,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                         No. 22-1128
                                                 (D.C. No. 1:18-CV-00588-RM-SKC)
  JASON LENGERICH; JENNIFER                                   (D. Colo.)
  HANSEN; WILLIAM CATTELL;
  COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF
  CORRECTIONS,

        Defendants - Appellees.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before BACHARACH, BALDOCK, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

       Larry Allen Thompson is a Colorado inmate. He filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983

 lawsuit against several officials from the Colorado Department of Corrections. The

       *
         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. This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
Appellate Case: 22-1128    Document: 010110813861        Date Filed: 02/16/2023      Page: 2

 district court dismissed his claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

 He appeals,1 and we affirm.

                                     I. Background

       Mr. Thompson’s operative complaint alleged the following facts. Officials at

 the Buena Vista Correctional Facility transferred him to a unit with communal

 showers. As prison officials knew, however, he is unable to shower in such a setting

 because he suffers posttraumatic stress stemming from sexual abuse he endured as a

 child. After his transfer to the new unit, he refused to shower for twenty-five days

 until prison officials again allowed him to shower in private.

       Mr. Thompson also made allegations about conditions at Buena Vista more

 broadly, asserting that the facility was understaffed and overcrowded. His cell

 measured fifty-four square feet, with twenty-one-and-a-half square feet of

 unencumbered floor space. It had sealed windows and “inadequate ventilation.”

 R. at 136. Mr. Thompson shared the cell with another inmate, spending an average

 of eighteen to twenty-four hours per day in it. During one lockdown for an influenza

 outbreak, he had to remain in the cell for eleven days without cleaning supplies,

 allowed out only four times for ten minutes to shower. He also described several acts

 of violence (none involving him) that he attributed to staffing shortages. In addition

 to describing these specific acts of violence, he alleged that understaffing had led to

       1
         Mr. Thompson represents himself, so we construe his filings liberally. See
 Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).

                                            2
Appellate Case: 22-1128     Document: 010110813861       Date Filed: 02/16/2023      Page: 3

 assaults and murders, but he did not offer specific information about how often such

 violence occurred. He was ultimately transferred from Buena Vista to a different

 facility.

        Based on these allegations, Mr. Thompson raised four claims:

             1. Prison officials violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to bodily
                privacy by giving him access to only communal showers.

             2. Prison officials violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal
                protection by denying him private showers while providing them to
                transgender and intersex inmates.

             3. Prison officials violated his Eighth Amendment rights by giving him
                access to only communal showers.

             4. Jason Lengerich (the Buena Vista warden) violated his Eighth
                Amendment rights because the facility was overcrowded and
                understaffed.2

 The district court dismissed the claims under Rule 12(b)(6), concluding the

 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

                                      II. Discussion

        We review the district court’s dismissal de novo. See Doe v. Woodard,

 912 F.3d 1278, 1288 (10th Cir. 2019). At this stage in the litigation, “it is the

 defendant’s conduct as alleged in the complaint that is scrutinized for

 constitutionality.” Thompson v. Ragland, 23 F.4th 1252, 1256 (10th Cir. 2022)

 (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). We accept as true all well-pleaded

        2
          Mr. Thompson also presented a claim against the Colorado Department of
 Corrections, and the district court dismissed it. Mr. Thompson does not challenge
 that ruling in his brief, so he has waived any argument against it. See Adler v.
 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 679 (10th Cir. 1998).
                                             3
Appellate Case: 22-1128     Document: 010110813861         Date Filed: 02/16/2023    Page: 4

 allegations in the complaint and construe them in the light most favorable to the

 plaintiff. See Thomas v. Kaven, 765 F.3d 1183, 1190 (10th Cir. 2014). “To survive

 dismissal, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to

 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. (internal quotation marks

 omitted).

        When a defendant asserts qualified immunity in a motion to dismiss, the

 plaintiff must show (1) that the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) that

 the constitutional right was clearly established. See Woodard, 912 F.3d at 1289.

 Courts have discretion to decide which qualified-immunity prong to consider first.

 Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011).

        An “official’s conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time of the

 challenged conduct, the contours of a right are sufficiently clear that every reasonable

 official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.” Frasier v.

 Evans, 992 F.3d 1003, 1014 (10th Cir.) (brackets and internal quotation marks

 omitted), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 427 (2021). To show that law is clearly established

 in our circuit, ordinarily the plaintiff must identify “a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit

 decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts

 must have found the law to be as the plaintiff maintains.” Id. (internal quotation

 marks omitted). The precedent must establish the right in “the specific context of the

 case, not as a broad general proposition.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

                                             4
Appellate Case: 22-1128        Document: 010110813861     Date Filed: 02/16/2023        Page: 5

 A. Fourteenth Amendment Right to Bodily Privacy

        Prison officials may restrict an inmate’s privacy rights “only to the extent

 necessary to further the correction system’s legitimate goals and policies.” Cumbey

 v. Meachum, 684 F.2d 712, 714 (10th Cir. 1982).

        Mr. Thompson has not shown a clearly established right to shower in private.

 Arguing otherwise, he points to Farmer v. Perrill, 288 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2002).

 But Perrill involved strip searches, so it does not clearly establish a right in the

 context of this case. See id. at 1257. The district court correctly concluded that the

 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

 B. Fourteenth Amendment Right to Equal Protection

        The Equal Protection Clause requires the government to treat similarly situated

 people alike. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439

 (1985). “Individuals are similarly situated only if they are alike in all relevant

 respects.” Requena v. Roberts, 893 F.3d 1195, 1210 (10th Cir. 2018) (internal

 quotation marks omitted).

        Mr. Thompson is not like transgender and intersex inmates in all relevant

 respects. Whether an inmate is transgender or intersex is relevant to the inmate’s

 need for a private shower because transgender and intersex inmates may face an

 additional risk of assault.

        This conclusion does not conflict with our prior decision in this case. In an

 earlier appeal, we concluded that Mr. Thompson’s equal-protection claim was not

 frivolous. Thompson v. Lengerich, 798 F. App’x 204, 213 (10th Cir. 2019). But the

                                             5
Appellate Case: 22-1128    Document: 010110813861        Date Filed: 02/16/2023     Page: 6

 fact that a claim is not frivolous does not mean it will necessarily survive scrutiny

 under Rule 12(b)(6). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 329 (1989).

       Mr. Thompson faults the district court for saying that he is not similarly

 situated to transgender and intersex inmates in all material respects rather than all

 relevant respects. But the district court merely used material as a synonym for

 relevant, and we see no error in that. Besides, our de novo review confirms that

 Mr. Thompson is not similarly situated to transgender and intersex inmates in all

 relevant respects. The district court correctly dismissed his equal-protection claim.

 C. Eighth Amendment Conditions-of-Confinement Claims

       The Eighth Amendment “does not mandate comfortable prisons.” Rhodes v.

 Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349 (1981). Conditions may be “restrictive and even

 harsh.” Id. at 347. Still, prison officials must “provide humane conditions of

 confinement, including adequate food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and

 reasonable safety from serious bodily harm.” Tafoya v. Salazar, 516 F.3d 912, 916

 (10th Cir. 2008). A conditions-of-confinement claim has two elements. First, the

 alleged conditions must be sufficiently serious—that is, they must “deprive an inmate

 of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities” or “subject an inmate to a

 substantial risk of serious harm.” Brooks v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 12 F.4th 1160,

 1173 (10th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). Second, the prison official

 must act with deliberate indifference. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994).

 An official will not be liable unless he “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to

 inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the

                                            6
Appellate Case: 22-1128    Document: 010110813861          Date Filed: 02/16/2023   Page: 7

 inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must

 also draw the inference.” Id. at 837.

       1. Communal showers

       Mr. Thompson failed to allege facts that could show officials violated the

 Eighth Amendment by giving him access to only communal showers for twenty-five

 days. He did not allege that they deprived him of all ways to clean himself, only that

 they refused to provide a specific way to do so—private showers. Nor does he allege

 facts showing that, in giving him access to only communal showers for twenty-five

 days, the defendants disregarded a substantial risk to his health or safety.

       2. Overcrowding and understaffing

       Requiring Mr. Thompson to share a cell with another inmate did not itself

 amount to an Eighth Amendment violation. See Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 348–49. And

 Mr. Thompson did not allege facts showing that the cramped conditions and

 inadequate ventilation subjected him to a risk of harm.

       We are not persuaded otherwise by Mr. Thompson’s reliance on Ramos v.

 Lamm, a case involving unconstitutional prison conditions. 639 F.2d 559, 567–70

 (10th Cir. 1980). Granted, Mr. Thompson’s cell offered fewer square feet per inmate

 than most of the cells in Ramos.3 See id. at 568–69. But the facility in Ramos had

 many problems beyond its small cells. For example, the facility had leaky roofs, a

 heating and ventilation system that could not provide adequate temperature control

       3
         The record in Ramos did not disclose the exact size of some cells at issue in
 that case. See 639 F.2d at 569 & nn.12 & 14.
                                             7
Appellate Case: 22-1128    Document: 010110813861         Date Filed: 02/16/2023       Page: 8

 and ventilation, excessive mold and fungus growth, sewage accumulating in cells,

 rodent and insect infestations, exposed electrical wiring, broken cell windows, and

 stained and soiled bedding. Id. at 569–70. Although Mr. Thompson also alleged

 inadequate ventilation in his cell, he failed to allege facts showing that the poor

 ventilation created risks to his health. Cf. id. at 569 (explaining that inadequate

 ventilation caused excessive odors, heat, and humidity, “creating stagnant air as well

 as excessive mold and fungus growth”). In short, we agree with the district court that

 Mr. Thompson’s complaint did not allege facts showing conditions anywhere “near

 as egregious as the conditions” in Ramos. R. at 270.

       Although Mr. Thompson described a handful of violent acts involving other

 inmates, he failed to allege facts showing that Mr. Lengerich disregarded a risk that

 Mr. Thompson himself would be harmed. A prison official may be liable if “a

 prisoner faces an excessive risk of attack for reasons personal to him or because all

 prisoners in his situation face such a risk.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 843. Mr. Thompson

 did not allege facts providing any reason to think he faced a higher risk of attack than

 the average Buena Vista inmate. Nor did he allege facts showing that violence at

 Buena Vista was so widespread that all inmates in his situation obviously faced a

 substantial risk of serious harm.

       Here again, Mr. Thompson’s comparison of the conditions at Buena Vista to

 those in Ramos does not persuade us. In Ramos, the evidence showed that the facility

 in that case had been “plagued with violence and the fear of violence.” 639 F.2d at

 572. Indeed, many inmates at the facility in Ramos directed their efforts “at merely

                                             8
Appellate Case: 22-1128    Document: 010110813861        Date Filed: 02/16/2023       Page: 9

 staying alive.” Id. at 573. Prison records showed “a significant number of stabbings,

 assaults, fights, and threats.” Id. And expert witnesses concluded that staffing levels

 could not “provide a reasonably safe environment for inmates.” Id. Mr. Thompson’s

 complaint does not allege facts showing inmates at Buena Vista faced a comparable

 environment.

       As for the eleven-day lockdown to address an influenza outbreak,

 Mr. Thompson did not allege facts showing that it imposed more than temporary

 discomfort. See Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 686–87 (1978) (recognizing that a

 “filthy, overcrowded cell and a diet of ‘grue’ might be tolerable for a few days and

 intolerably cruel for weeks or months”). Nor did he allege facts showing that

 Mr. Lengerich disregarded a risk to Mr. Thompson’s health or safety during the

 lockdown.

       For these reasons, the district court correctly concluded that Mr. Lengerich is

 entitled to qualified immunity.

 D. Discretionary Rulings

       Mr. Thompson challenges the district court’s rulings denying him appointed

 counsel and staying discovery. We review these rulings for an abuse of discretion.

 See Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995) (appointed counsel);

 Diaz v. Paul J. Kennedy Law Firm, 289 F.3d 671, 674 (10th Cir. 2002) (staying

 discovery). Mr. Thompson’s claims are not complicated, and they lack merit. In

 addition, he capably presented the claims. So the district court did not abuse its

 discretion by declining to appoint counsel. See Rucks, 57 F.3d at 979 (identifying

                                            9
Appellate Case: 22-1128    Document: 010110813861        Date Filed: 02/16/2023    Page: 10

  factors bearing on whether to appoint counsel). Nor did the court abuse its discretion

  when it stayed discovery, for “a district court may stay discovery upon the filing of a

  dispositive motion based on qualified immunity.”4 Stonecipher v. Valles, 759 F.3d

  1134, 1148 (10th Cir. 2014).

                                     III. Conclusion

        We affirm the district court’s dismissal. We deny as moot Mr. Thompson’s

  motion to proceed without prepaying costs or fees; he has paid the filing fee in full.

                                              Entered for the Court

                                              Bobby R. Baldock
                                              Circuit Judge

        4
          To the extent Mr. Thompson separately argues that the district court should
  have conducted an “independent judicial investigation,” we reject that argument.
  Aplt. Br. at 6. Mr. Thompson cites no authority requiring a judicial investigation.

                                             10