FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
October 18, 2011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
GIOVANNI LARATTA,
Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 11-1183
v. (D. Colorado)
ARISTEDES W. ZAVARAS; (D.C. No. 1:09-CV-02498-REB-MEH)
ROBERT ALLEN; CHRIS BARR;
SUSAN JONES; JIM BROWN,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before LUCERO, ANDERSON, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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. 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.
Plaintiff and appellant, Giovanni Laratta, a prisoner in the Colorado State
Penitentiary (“CSP”), proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of his complaint
against the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. 1 For the following reasons,
we affirm.
BACKGROUND
We derive the basic undisputed facts from one of the two dispositive
magistrate judge reports and recommendations entered in this case, which were
adopted for the most part by the district court. 2 The factual portions of the reports
and recommendations were adopted in full.
CSP is a maximum security/administrative segregation facility, and as such
is the most secure and restrictive facility within the Colorado Department of
Corrections (“CDOC”). As indicated, Mr. Laratta is imprisoned there. Prisoners
in CSP are managed pursuant to Operational Memorandum (“OM”) 650-100,
which provides for increased levels of privileges for appropriate behavior and
program compliance. Property belonging to prisoners is managed in accordance
with CDOC Administrative Regulation (“AR”) 850-06. AR 850-06(IV)(D)
1
The defendants in this case are: Aristedes Zavaras, the Executive Director
of CSP; Susan Jones, the Warden; Robert Allen, the Associate Warden; Chris
Barr, a correctional officer; and Jim Brown, a correctional officer.
2
There were other decisions entered by the district court, but the two major
decisions provide most of the reasoning behind the ultimate dismissal of this case.
-2-
provides that “[a]fter initial processing, offenders will be permitted to acquire
authorized personal property, through approved sources of supply and the CDOC
Canteen, as long as the increase of property does not violate the personal property
limitations.” AR 850-06(IV)(D)(1)(b) further provides that “[t]he Canteen will be
the sole source for all personal property items with the exception of books,
magazines, legal papers, hobby craft items, health care items, and faith items
. . . .”
Prisoners who receive mail must comply with the procedures in AR 300-38.
AR 300-38(IV)(B)(8)(a) provides that “[a]ll censorable or rejected reading
material shall be forwarded to the facility reading committee and disposed of
pursuant to AR 300-26,” the regulation regarding prisoner reading material. If a
piece of mail is rejected, it “may be returned to the sender at the expense of the
offender or disposed of at the discretion of DOC employees. The offender shall
receive a written notification of the rejection utilizing the ‘Notice of
Rejection/Disposition of Mail’. . . within ten days of receipt of the item by DOC
mailroom employees.” Another regulation permits DOC employees to open any
incoming or outgoing mail to inspect it. These regulations apply to the events
giving rise to Mr. Laratta’s case.
On or around December 10, 2008, the CSP mailroom received photographs
that were intended for Mr. Laratta. Mr. Laratta’s father claimed that he had
mailed forty photographs to his son. CSP employees determined that the
-3-
photographs should be reviewed by the facility’s reading committee. The
photographs never, in fact, reached the committee; rather, they were inadvertently
destroyed.
Mr. Laratta followed the CDOC grievance procedure to address the
destruction of the photographs. At step 3 of the grievance procedure, a CSP
grievance officer investigated Mr. Laratta’s complaints and determined that he
had received eight commercial photographs through the mail, that the photos were
confiscated, placed in the Contraband Room and subsequently destroyed. The
officer further determined that Mr. Laratta should have been given the
opportunity to determine the disposition of the photos before their destruction,
and that Mr. Laratta was entitled to reimbursement for the destroyed photos.
Ultimately, Mr. Laratta’s inmate account was credited with $8.00, the retail value
of the photos.
On or about February 17, 2009, a utility calendar arrived in the CSP
mailroom, intended for Mr. Laratta. At CSP, calendars are considered personal
property and are subject to the restrictions contained in AR 850-06. Given that,
by regulation, “[t]he Canteen will be the sole source for all personal property
items . . .,” the calendar was deemed to be contraband, inasmuch as it was not
from the Canteen. Accordingly, on February 17, 2009, a Notice of
Rejection/Disposition of Mail was issued to Mr. Laratta, indicating that the
calendar was declared to be contraband and Mr. Laratta would need to designate
-4-
the proper disposition for it within ten days or the calendar would be disposed of
pursuant to regulation. On February 23, 2009, Mr. Laratta executed the
designation of disposition for the calendar, requesting that it be sent to his father.
Mr. Laratta claims that correctional officer Jim Brown returned those documents
to him on March 3, 2009, indicating that the calendar had been destroyed that
day. Officer Brown claims Mr. Laratta failed to inform the mailroom staff of the
desired disposition of the calendar within the ten-day limit. The calendar was, in
fact, destroyed on March 3.
The final dispute involved the receipt by Mr. Laratta of paralegal
correspondence course materials. Prisoners at CSP are not permitted to belong to
any academic/educational correspondence courses. This restriction is based upon
the maximum-security/administrative segregation nature of CSP and its programs
aimed at changing prisoner behavior to prepare the prisoner to transition to a
general population prison setting. Once a prisoner is out of CSP, he may
participate in correspondence courses. These materials were accordingly
confiscated.
Mr. Laratta filed the instant pro se civil rights complaint on October 23,
2009, alleging that his First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights had been
violated by the defendants when they confiscated and/or destroyed his incoming
mail. Upon initial review, the district court determined that Mr. Laratta failed to
state due process claims for deprivation of his personal property, and it therefore
-5-
dismissed the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process claims against all the
defendants. The only remaining claims were the First Amendment claims against
the named defendants. Mr. Laratta sought injunctive relief, compensatory
damages and punitive damages.
Defendants Executive Officer Zavaras, Associate Warden Allen, and
Warden Jones filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. They argued: (1) to the
extent Mr. Laratta brought his claims against them in their official capacities,
they were entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit; (2) to the extent
Mr. Laratta brought his claims against them in their individual capacities, they
were entitled to qualified immunity; (3) Mr. Laratta failed to allege their personal
participation in the challenged conduct; and (4) Mr. Laratta has failed to state a
claim for compensatory damages. Defendant correctional officer Barr filed an
answer to the complaint. Defendant Brown was added as a defendant later on in
the suit.
Mr. Laratta responded that he was only suing the defendants in their
individual capacities; that he had adequately alleged personal participation; and
that he was entitled to compensatory damages.
On May 6, 2010, Mr. Laratta filed a motion for leave to amend his
complaint, seeking to add a First Amendment claim against correctional officer
-6-
Brown. He also wished to “clarify” his First Amendment claims against
defendants Zavaras, Allen and Jones. 3
The magistrate judge to whom the matter was referred carefully analyzed
each claim and defense and, in a thorough 22-page report and recommendation,
recommended that the defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted in part and
denied in part, and that Mr. Laratta’s motion for leave to file an amended
complaint be granted in part and denied in part. The district court adopted the
report and recommendation in full.
This resulted in the following decisions: the defendants’ motion to dismiss
was granted as to (1) Mr. Laratta’s claims for compensatory damages for mental
or emotional injuries; (2) his claims against the defendants in their official
capacities; (3) his claims against defendants Allen and Zavaras in their individual
capacities; and (4) his claims against defendant Jones regarding her application of
regulations in the denial of his grievance. The motion to dismiss was denied as
to Mr. Laratta’s claims against defendant Jones regarding her implementation of
certain policies regarding mail. Furthermore, Mr. Laratta’s motion for leave to
file an amended complaint was granted as to (1) his request to amend his claims
against defendant Jones regarding the mail policies; and (2) his request to amend
3
These clarifications related to what particular steps in the grievance
procedure each defendant allegedly participated in. Thus, Mr. Laratta made it
clear that he challenged Associate Warden Allen’s rejection of his claim at step 2
of the grievance procedure; Executive Director Zavaras’ participation in step 3 of
the grievance; and Warden Jones’ involvement in step 1 of the grievance.
-7-
his complaint to add a claim against defendant Brown. The motion to amend was
denied as to (1) his request to amend his claims against defendants Barr, Allen
and Zavaras; and (2) his request to amend his claim against defendant Jones
regarding her application of a regulation in connection with his grievance. This
decision had the effect of removing defendants Zavaras and Allen completely
from the law suit.
On December 2, 2010, the remaining defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment, which again was referred to a magistrate judge. The
defendants sought summary judgment on their argument that they were entitled to
qualified immunity and they sought summary judgment on Mr. Laratta’s claim of
entitlement to punitive damages.
Once again, the magistrate judge, in a 26-page decision, thoroughly and
carefully analyzed each claim as to each defendant, applying proper and familiar
summary judgment standards. With respect to defendant Brown, the magistrate
judge determined that, because Mr. Laratta had failed to demonstrate a First
Amendment violation with respect to the destruction of the photographs, he
recommended granting summary judgment on Mr. Laratta’s First Amendment
claims against Mr. Brown regarding the photographs, finding Mr. Brown entitled
to qualified immunity. With respect to the claim regarding the calendar, the
magistrate judge determined that a disputed issue of material fact remained
-8-
regarding Mr. Brown’s entitlement to qualified immunity, so the judge
recommended denying summary judgment on that claim.
With regard to defendant Jones, the magistrate judge recommended finding
her entitled to qualified immunity as to Mr. Laratta’s First Amendment claim
concerning the paralegal correspondence course, and therefore granting her
motion for summary judgment.
Finally, regarding Mr. Laratta’s claims for punitive damages, the magistrate
judge recommended denying defendants’ motion seeking summary judgment on
punitive damages for Mr. Brown’s alleged destruction of the calendar. But
because the court recommended dismissal of all other claims against Mr. Brown
and Ms. Jones, the court recommended granting defendants’ motion with respect
to punitive damages as to these claims.
On review of this latest report and recommendation, the district adopted it
in part and rejected it in part. Basically, the court rejected the magistrate judge’s
recommendation that Mr. Brown is not entitled to qualified immunity as to the
calendar incident. It concluded that the First Amendment was not implicated in
that series of events. Thus, the court concluded that Mr. Brown, like all the other
remaining defendants, was entitled to qualified immunity on all of Mr. Laratta’s
claims. It therefore granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment in its
entirety, and dismissed Mr. Laratta’s complaint with prejudice. This appeal
followed.
-9-
DISCUSSION
After the many procedural twists and turns in this case, the district court
ultimately dismissed Mr. Laratta’s complaint entirely. As indicated above, each
written decision resolving the pieces of this case was long, thorough and precise.
We cannot improve on the reasoning and analysis provided by the district court.
Accordingly, for substantially the reasons stated in its two decisions, adopting for
the most part and rejecting in part the reports and recommendations by the
magistrate judge, we affirm the dismissal.
CONCLUSION
The dismissal is AFFIRMED and appellant’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis is denied. Appellant is ordered to immediately pay the remaining unpaid
balance of the filing fee.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-10-