Sherratt v. Utah Department of Corrections ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                              FILED
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS October 23, 2013
    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    TENTH CIRCUIT              Clerk of Court
    WILLIAM HENRY SHERRATT,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,                No. 13-4061
    v.                               (D.C. No. 2:10-CV-01091-TS)
    UTAH DEPARTMENT OF                            (D. of Utah)
    CORRECTIONS; UTAH STATE
    PRISON; UTAH CONTRACT
    ATTORNEYS; STEVEN TURLEY,
    Warden; LARRY BUSSIO, Deputy
    Warden; UTAH ATTORNEY
    GENERAL; BILLIE CASPER,
    Grievance Coodinator; TOM
    ANDERSON, Hearing Officer; GREG
    PEAY, Hearing Office Director;
    ROBYN WILLIAMS, Deputy
    Director; MIKE HADDON, Deputy
    Director; TOM PATTERSON,
    Director; MARK SHURTLEFF, Utah
    Attorney General; DALE WRIGHT,
    Deputy Warden; WAYNE
    FREESTONE, Contract Attorney;
    MIKE THOMPSON, Assistant Utah
    Attorney General; MICHELLE I.
    YOUNG, Utah Assistant Attorney
    General; DAVID AUGERHOFFER,
    Contract Attorney; RON WILSON,
    Captain; SHARON D'AMICO;
    BOARD OF PARDONS AND
    PAROLE; CLAY CAWLEY, Captain;
    JOHN DOE, Utah Assistant Attorney
    General; JANE DOE; FNU STRONG,
    Watch Commander; CRAIG BUCH,
    Programming Director; ROBERT
    JENSEN, Captain; FNU HART,
    Sergeant; JOHN DOE (2), Utah
    Assistant Attorney General; JOHN
    DOE (3), Utah Assistant Attorney
    General; JESSIE GALLEGOS, BOP
    Member; CLARK HARMS, BOP
    Member; ROBERT YEATES, BOP
    Member; CURTIS GARNER, BOP
    Chairman; DENNIS SORENSON,
    Warden; ANNA LEE CARLSON;
    FNU RASMUSSEN, Officer;
    PATRICK LNU, Sergeant,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before TYMKOVICH, ANDERSON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. **
    William Sherratt, a Utah state prisoner, appeals the district court’s
    dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 civil rights complaint against several
    officials of the Utah Department of Corrections (UDC) and Utah Attorney
    General’s Office. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIRM.
    *
    This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the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.
    **
    After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge
    panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material
    assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th
    Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
    -2-
    I. Background
    In a 200-page complaint, Sherratt alleges that the defendants violated his
    First, Fourteenth, and Eighth Amendment rights in six different ways and that the
    defendants conspired to retaliate against him for exercising his First Amendment
    rights in twenty-three different ways. And he challenges the constitutionality of
    Utah’s indeterminate sentencing scheme.
    The district court dismissed several defendants charged only in their
    supervisory capacities. The court also dismissed several of Sherratt’s claims as
    vague, lacking standing, barred by Utah’s four-year statute of limitations, or not
    based on constitutionally recognized rights. Finally, the district court dismissed
    Sherratt’s challenge to Utah’s indeterminate sentencing scheme. See Sherratt v.
    Turley, No. 2:10-cv-01091-TS, slip. op. (D. Utah Mar. 25, 2013).
    On appeal, Sherratt asserts the district court erred in dismissing his claims.
    In particular, he asserts that (1) defendants retaliated against him for filing
    grievances and threatening to file suit by denying his family visitation clearances
    and depriving him of his legal work; (2) defendants conspired to deny him access
    to the courts and retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights;
    (3) defendants deprived him of his constitutional right to provide legal assistance
    to other inmates; (4) defendants deprived him of due process by not allowing him
    to participate in a sex offender treatment program (SOTP); and (5) Utah’s
    -3-
    indeterminate sentencing scheme is unconstitutional. Sherratt also asserts several
    new claims on appeal impliedly attacking the validity of his sentence.
    II. Discussion
    We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim
    under 42 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). See Kay v. Bemis, 
    500 F.3d 1214
    , 1217
    (10th Cir. 2007). In determining whether dismissal is proper, we accept the
    allegations as true and construe those allegations, and any reasonable inferences
    that might be drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id.
    We apply the same standard of review for dismissals under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as
    we do for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Id. As such, the complaint
    must present “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
    Bell Atl. Corp v. Twombly, 
    550 U.S. 544
    , 570 (2007). “Threadbare recitals of the
    elements of a cause of action” accompanied by “mere conclusory statements”
    offered as evidence are not sufficient to state a claim. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 
    556 U.S. 662
    , 678 (2009). Because Sherratt proceeds pro se, we construe his filings
    liberally. Whitney v. New Mexico, 
    113 F.3d 1170
    , 1173–74 (10th Cir. 1997). We
    will not, however, supply additional factual allegations to “round out a plaintiff’s
    complaint or construct a legal theory” on his behalf. Id.
    -4-
    A. Supervisory Claims, Standing, and Statute of Limitations
    Sherratt’s over 200-page complaint raises a number of claims directed to
    supervisory personnel, other inmates, and conduct that occurred years before he
    filed the complaint. The district court properly dismissed these claims.
    First, the dismissal of the complaint directed to supervisory personnel was
    correct. Sherratt alleges that prison officials in the chain of command violated his
    constitutional rights by denying his grievances. But personal participation in a
    violation of a plaintiff’s constitutional rights is an essential allegation in a Section
    1983 claim. See Smith v. Maschner, 
    899 F.2d 940
    , 950–51 (10th Cir. 1990).
    Denial of a grievance or failure to properly investigate or process grievances,
    without any connection to the violation of constitutional rights alleged by the
    plaintiff, is not sufficient to establish personal participation for purposes of a
    Section 1983 claim. See, e.g., Gallagher v. Shelton, 
    587 F.3d 1063
    , 1069 (10th
    Cir. 2009); Brown v. Cline, 319 F. App’x 704, 705–06 (10th Cir. 2009).
    Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed Sherratt’s claims against
    individual defendants charged in their supervisory capacities.
    Second, the district court properly dismissed Sherratt’s claims alleged on
    behalf of other prisoners or the general prison population because Sherratt lacked
    standing to bring them. See Reynoldson v. Shillinger, 
    907 F.2d 124
    , 125 (10th
    Cir. 1990) (“[T]o the extent a complaint concerns ‘inmates’ rather than the
    -5-
    plaintiff himself, it is dismissable for failure to allege the plaintiff’s standing to
    proceed.” (citations omitted)).
    Third, the district court properly dismissed Sherratt’s claims occurring four
    or more years before the filing of the complaint under Utah’s four-year residual
    statute of limitations. See Fratus v. DeLand, 
    49 F.3d 673
    , 675 (10th Cir. 1995).
    B. Retaliation Claims
    Sherratt also asserts that prison officials retaliated against him after he filed
    grievances and threatened to sue for retaliation. Prison officials may not retaliate
    against or harass inmates because of the inmate’s exercise of his constitutional
    rights, including filing internal prison grievances or initiating lawsuits. Fogle v.
    Pierson, 
    435 F.3d 1252
    , 1264 (10th Cir. 2006); Maschner, 899 F.2d at 947–48.
    But an inmate is “not inoculated from the normal conditions of confinement
    experienced by convicted felons serving time in prison merely because he has
    engaged in protected activity.” Peterson v. Shanks, 
    149 F.3d 1140
    , 1144 (10th
    Cir. 1998). The plaintiff must therefore allege specific facts showing that “but
    for the retaliatory motive, the incidents to which he refers, including the
    disciplinary action would not have taken place.” Id. (quotations omitted).
    Sherratt maintains that prison officials retaliated against him by prohibiting
    his sister from attending a music recital he organized in prison. Sherratt’s sister
    was denied admittance to the recital on November 1, 2008, but Sherratt nowhere
    indicates what grievances he had previously filed that provoked this action or
    -6-
    their proximity in time to the alleged retaliatory action. His mere allegations of
    retaliation, without more, are insufficient to show a retaliatory motive. Cf.
    Maschner, 899 F.2d at 948.
    Sherratt next contends that prison officials singled him out from other
    prisoners with similar amounts of legal work and forced him to dispose of the
    legal work accumulated in his cell in retaliation for filing grievances and
    threatening to file suit. Sherratt states that this occurred “because I told [the
    official] I would sue for retaliation.” Aplt. Br. at 11. We first note that
    restriction of legal materials in a prison cell is reasonable in light of security and
    fire hazards. See Green v. Johnson, 
    977 F.2d 1383
    , 1390 (10th Cir. 1992). Even
    assuming that Sherratt was singled out from other inmates with similar amounts
    of legal work, there is no indication that these events occurred in close proximity
    to Sherratt’s statements. Sherratt’s conclusory allegation that these events
    occurred because he threatened to sue for retaliation are insufficient to state a
    claim. See Hall v. Bellmon, 
    935 F.2d 1106
    , 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (“[T]he court
    need accept as true only the plaintiff’s well-pleaded factual contentions, not his
    conclusory allegations.” (citations omitted)).
    Finally, Sherratt alleges that defendants conspired to retaliate against him
    for exercising his First Amendment rights. But Sherratt’s conclusory allegations
    that defendants conspired to retaliate against him for exercising his First
    -7-
    Amendment rights are insufficient to state a claim of retaliation. Accordingly, we
    dismiss these claims.
    C. Right to Provide Legal Assistance to Inmates
    Sherratt asserts that several defendants violated his First Amendment right
    to access the courts by preventing him from assisting other inmates with their
    legal work. But a prisoner does not have a constitutionally protected right to
    provide legal representation to other inmates. Maschner, 899 F.2d at 950. And,
    given the number of Sherratt’s filings, it is unclear how his inability to help
    prisoners with their legal work has prevented his access to the courts. See Munz
    v. Nix, 
    908 F.2d 267
    , 268 n.3 (8th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, we affirm the district
    court’s dismissal of this claim.
    D. Denial of Privileges
    Next, Sherratt argues that the Board of Pardons and Parole
    unconstitutionally deprived him of a liberty interest under the Fourteenth
    Amendment by preventing him from participating in SOTP, an optional
    rehabilitative program for sex offenders. 1 Completion of SOTP does not
    necessarily result in an earlier parole date, but an inmate who successfully
    completes the program may be eligible for an earlier rehearing date.
    1
    The UDC offers offenders who meet certain requirements the choice of
    participating in SOTP. This program is completely voluntary. Utah Code Ann.
    § 64-9b-4(1) (2013).
    -8-
    Contrary to Sherratt’s assertions, the option to participate in a rehabilitative
    program like SOTP is a privilege, not a right. See Doe v. Heil, 
    2013 WL 4504772
    , at *7 (10th Cir. 2013); Termunde v. Cook, 
    684 F. Supp. 255
    , 259 (D.
    Utah 1988). Thus, no particular process is constitutionally due or required
    regarding Sherratt’s placement in SOTP. See Templeman v. Gunter, 
    16 F.3d 367
    ,
    371 (10th Cir. 1994) (“Since [plaintiff] was not deprived of any liberty to which
    he was entitled, no particular process was constitutionally due or required,
    regardless of state law. Nor does denying process, however mandatory under
    state law, itself deny liberty.”).
    Sherratt also claims that his inability to participate in SOTP
    unconstitutionally lengthened the term of his prison sentence. Sherratt’s
    allegations are insufficient to state a claim for several reasons. First, Sherratt was
    in fact admitted into the SOTP program, but chose not to participate because one
    of the requirements to participate is the admission of guilt. 2 See Sherratt v.
    2
    On appeal, Sherratt asks us to consider the question of whether the
    UDC’s requirement that an inmate admit guilt to be accepted into the SOTP
    violates his Fifth Amendment rights. Notwithstanding Sherratt’s failure to raise
    this issue in the district court, we note the Supreme Court has previously held that
    a prison rehabilitative program with a legitimate penological objective does not
    violate the privilege against self-incrimination “if the adverse consequences an
    inmate faces for not participating are related to the program objectives and do not
    constitute atypical and significant hardships in relation to the ordinary incidents
    of prison life.” McKune v. Lile, 
    536 U.S. 24
    , 37–38 (2002). Sherratt has not
    shown that his term of prison was actually lengthened due to his inability to
    participate in SOTP. As such, any inability or delay in his participation in SOTP
    does not implicate his Fifth Amendment rights.
    -9-
    Turley, No. 2:10-cv-01091-TS, slip. op. add. D at 26 (D. Utah Mar. 25, 2013).
    Second, as stated above, completion of SOTP does not necessarily result in an
    earlier parole date. Finally, any purported interference with the length of
    Sherratt’s parole is insufficient to state a claim under Section 1983 because there
    is no constitutional right to be released before the expiration of a valid sentence.
    Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 
    442 U.S. 1
    , 7 (1979);
    accord Lustgarden v. Gunter, 
    966 F.2d 552
    , 555 (10th Cir. 1992). And neither
    has the State of Utah created a liberty interest entitling prisoners to federal
    constitutional protection. See Malek v. Haun, 
    26 F.3d 1013
    , 1016 (10th Cir.
    1994).
    Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s decision to dismiss Sherratt’s
    claims regarding his inability to participate in the SOTP program and any
    resulting effect on the length of his sentence.
    E. Utah’s Indeterminate Sentencing Scheme
    Sherratt challenges the district court’s dismissal of his challenge to Utah’s
    indeterminate sentencing scheme. But we have upheld Utah’s sentencing scheme
    against constitutional challenge. Straley v. Utah Bd. of Pardons, 
    582 F.3d 1208
    ,
    1212 (10th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we affirm the district court.
    F. Other Claims
    Finally, Sherratt argues for the first time on appeal three new theories: (1)
    new evidence shows that “false facts” were manufactured wholesale by the
    -10-
    judiciary to deprive him of his right to access its tribunals or to wrongfully
    convict him; (2) his conviction itself violated the Equal Protection Clause of the
    Fourteenth Amendment because Mormon citizens are not charged for statutory
    rape; and (3) his Sixth Amendment rights were violated based on ineffective
    assistance of counsel prior to his trial.
    In general, we refuse to consider new issues on appeal; the decision to take
    up questions for the first time on appeal is left primarily to this court’s discretion.
    Singleton v. Wulff, 
    428 U.S. 106
     (1976). Even if Sherratt did not waive the
    claims he now brings on appeal, we dismiss these claims as barred by Heck v.
    Humphrey, 
    512 U.S. 477
     (1994), because each necessarily implies the invalidity
    of Sherratt’s conviction and sentence. See, e.g., Abella v. Rubino, 
    63 F.3d 1063
    ,
    1064–65 (11th Cir. 1995) (false evidence); Roberts v. O’Bannon, 199 F. App’x
    711, 713–14 (10th Cir. 2006) (violation of Equal Protection Clause in charging
    decision); Holly v. Gotcher, 427 F. App’x 634, 635–36 (10th Cir. 2011)
    (ineffective assistance of counsel).
    -11-
    III. Conclusion
    Accordingly, we AFFIRM the order of the district court dismissing
    Sherratt’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Appellant’s motion
    for oral argument is DENIED.
    ENTERED FOR THE COURT
    Timothy M. Tymkovich
    Circuit Judge
    -12-