UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Filed 4/18/96
TENTH CIRCUIT
ERNEST TRUMAN STANTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
No. 95-1294
v.
(D.C. No. 95-S-1390)
(Dist. Colo.)
KATIE DOLTON, ARISTEDES
ZAVARAS, and ROY ROMER,
Defendants-Appellees.
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
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except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.
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because the materials were archaic and outdated, in violation of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
-2-
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
-3-
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
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-