F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FEB 4 2000
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
JOE JOHNSON, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 99-6148
(D.C. No. 98-CV-494-T)
JAMES L. SAFFLE; DELORES (W.D. Okla.)
RAMSEY; STEVE HARGETT;
KATHY HALE; BRYAN PALMER;
STEVEN W. DAVIS,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before EBEL , KELLY , and BRISCOE , 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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 of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
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.
Plaintiff-appellant Joe Johnson, Jr. appeals from summary judgment granted
in favor of defendants on his civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, alleges denial of constitutional rights while he
was incarcerated in Lexington, Oklahoma. He asserts that a department of
corrections (“DOC”) policy limiting the amount of legal material an inmate may
possess in his cell unconstitutionally restricts his access to courts in violation of
his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and in violation of his right to assist
other inmates in preparation and filing of their legal pleadings. In a separate
count, he alleges that certain of the state defendants retaliated against him for
filing a grievance contesting a DOC no-smoking policy by enforcing the property
restrictions and by threatening to issue a misconduct report. In a third count,
plaintiff alleges that all defendants conspired to retaliate against him for filing
grievances and for assisting other inmates in legal matters. He later asserted that
the retaliation culminated in a transfer to another facility. He asserts that because
the new facility takes more stringent security measures and is noisier, more
crowded, and less safe and comfortable, transfer to that facility may be considered
to be punishment. Plaintiff sought injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief.
-2-
On order from the court, defendants filed a Martinez report, see Martinez v.
Aaron , 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978), and moved to dismiss and for summary
judgment. In his recommendation for disposition of the case, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B), the magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff had failed to state
a claim against defendant Davis (a private attorney) because of the absence of
factual allegations demonstrating that Davis acted under color of state law,
see Hammond v. Bales , 843 F.2d 1320, 1323 (10th Cir. 1988). He therefore
recommended granting Davis’s motion to dismiss. The magistrate judge proposed
granting summary judgment in favor of all state defendants on the property
limitation claim, concluding under Turner v. Safley , 482 U.S. 78, 88-91 (1987),
that the DOC regulations bore a reasonable relationship to a legitimate
penological objective. The magistrate judge also found that plaintiff had failed
to allege actual injury caused by the property restriction in his denial of access
to courts claim. The magistrate judge properly determined that plaintiff has no
constitutional right to provide legal representation to other inmates. See Smith v.
Maschner , 899 F.2d 940, 950 (10th Cir. 1990).
As to the retaliation claims, the magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff
had failed to allege that he was actually punished for any reason, since a claim
that a prisoner has been verbally threatened is not sufficient to state a claim under
§ 1983, see Collins v. Cundy , 603 F.2d 825, 827 (10th Cir. 1979), and because
-3-
plaintiff had not alleged or shown any direct or circumstantial evidence that “but
for the retaliatory motive, the incidents to which he refers . . . would not have
taken place,” Peterson v. Shanks , 149 F.3d 1140, 1144 (10th Cir. 1998) (quotation
omitted).
The magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff’s claims of conspiracy were
vague, conclusory, and presented no facts showing agreement and concerted
action designed to deprive plaintiff of a constitutional right, and therefore could
not survive summary judgment. See Durre v. Dempsey , 869 F.2d 543, 545
(10th Cir. 1989). Finally, the magistrate judge recommended denying plaintiff’s
motion for a temporary restraining order because plaintiff had failed to establish
a threat of irreparable harm and because the relief requested was not consistent
with the public interest. See Lundgrin v. Claytor , 619 F.2d 61, 63 (10th Cir.
1980).
The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations,
dismissing the claim against Davis and granting the remaining defendants’
motions for summary judgment. The court also denied plaintiff’s request for a
temporary restraining order and his motions to supplement the record, to compel
discovery, and to amend the complaint to add other defendants.
On appeal, plaintiff argues that the court erred by (1) denying his motion to
supplement the pleadings; (2) concluding that his transfer to another facility was
-4-
proper despite his claims of retaliatory motive; (3) applying Lundgrin to his
request for injunctive relief in light of Green v. Johnson , 977 F.2d 1383 (10th Cir.
1992); (4) failing to order production of prison video tapes and denying his
motion for discovery; and (5) refusing to appoint counsel.
We review the court’s ruling on the motion to supplement the record for
abuse of discretion. See Sports Racing Servs., Inc. v. Sports Car Club of Am.,
Inc. , 131 F.3d 874, 894 (10th Cir. 1997). We first note that the district court
never ruled on either plaintiff’s motion to supplement the pleadings filed July 30,
1998 (R. Doc. 30), or on his motion to supplement his summary judgment proof
of retaliation filed January 15, 1999 (R. Doc. 39). The court also did not discuss
the contents of the July 1998 motion in ruling on summary judgment. We deem
those motions as having been denied, and will address whether the court abused
its discretion in failing to grant the motions or consider the pleadings.
The court did deny plaintiff’s motion to supplement the record filed
February 8, 1999 (R. Doc. 40). A review of this motion shows that plaintiff
requested supplementation with a letter plaintiff sent to the Lexington
Correctional facility regarding an order and judgment issued by this court.
Because the letter is not relevant to the court’s summary judgment rulings, the
court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to supplement.
-5-
We reject plaintiff’s claim that documents submitted with his motions filed
on July 30, 1998 and January15, 1999, demonstrate a genuine issue of material
fact regarding retaliation. In his July motion, plaintiff submitted proof that
another inmate, Steve Seitz, was allowed to keep more than one cubic foot of
legal materials in his cell, while he was denied the same request. He argues that
this difference in treatment is proof of defendants’ retaliatory motive. We note,
however, that Seitz’s request involved legal materials necessary for his own
appeals while plaintiff’s request was based on his claim that he needed to keep
excess legal materials in order to assist other inmates. Compare R. Doc. 28,
attachments 7-10 with id. , attachments 11, 12, 18-20. Under these differing
circumstances, plaintiff has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact
regarding defendants’ alleged retaliatory motive, and the court did not abuse its
discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion to supplement the record.
Although he did not expressly refer to it or rule upon it, the magistrate
judge did address plaintiff’s claims raised in his January 15, 1999 motion that his
transfer to another prison was retaliatory because it occurred after his grievances
and lawsuits were filed. The court noted that the transfer bore no close temporal
proximity to the grievances or filing of suits and that transfers are within the
normal incidents of prison confinement under Meachum v. Fano , 427 U.S. 215,
225 (1976). The court did not abuse its discretion in denying this motion. We
-6-
further conclude that the court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s
retaliation claims for substantially the same reasons as stated in the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendations.
Plaintiff argues that Green v. Johnson , 977 F.2d 1383 (10th Cir. 1992),
precludes application of the Lundgrin factors in his motion for temporary
injunction. We disagree. The court in Green remanded part of that case to the
district court because the plaintiff’s inability to produce sufficient evidence of
denial of access to legal materials may have been caused by the defendants’
unconstitutional behavior, and the district court’s findings and conclusions were
inadequate to make a determination as to which party should be held responsible
for plaintiff’s inability to meet his burden of proof. See id. at 1390. Those
factors are not present in this case, and plaintiff has failed to allege that the
property limitation has prevented him from accessing his legal materials. The
magistrate judge properly applied Lundgrin and properly denied the motion for
a temporary injunction.
Plaintiff has failed to support his claims of error regarding the court’s
denial of his motions to compel discovery and to appoint counsel with any factual
or legal argument. We have reviewed the motions and conclude that they were
properly denied under the circumstances.
-7-
The judgment is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
-8-