Barrett v. Orman ( 2010 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
April 15, 2010
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
JACOB BARRETT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
No. 10-7000
v. (D.C. No. 09-CV-00064-FHS-SPS)
(E.D. Okla.)
DAVID ORMAN; RANDALL
WORKMAN; DEBBIE L. MORTON;
MAX WILLIAMS,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. **
Plaintiff-Appellant Jacob Barrett, a state inmate proceeding pro se, appeals
the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as well as the court’s
denial of his motion to amend his complaint. Mr. Barrett sued David Orman, the
mailroom administrator at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary (“OSP”), Marty
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Sirmons, 1 the warden of OSP, Debbie L. Morton, the director’s designee of the
Oklahoma Department of Corrections (“ODOC”), and Max Williams, the director
of the Oregon Department of Corrections, for violations of his free speech rights
under the First Amendment and his due process rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment. Finding that Mr. Barrett put forth enough facts to state a plausible
claim of relief against Defendants Orman, Workman, and Morton, we reverse the
district court’s dismissal as to those defendants. We affirm the district court’s
dismissal as to Defendant Williams and the court’s denial of Mr. Barrett’s motion
to amend his complaint.
Mr. Barrett is an Oregon prisoner serving his sentence in the custody of
ODOC at OSP. 2 R. 192. Mr. Barrett alleges that Defendants have rejected mail
sent to him “without Written Notice, a statement of reasons for the
rejection/withholding of the mail, or an opportunity to be heard.” 1 R. 140. Mr.
Barrett filed a grievance with ODOC, complaining that ODOC returned certain
mail to its sender without “a notice or reason for the violation. . . . Pursuant to
OP-030117(8)(b) I am entitled to a notice of mail violation.” 1 R. 24. ODOC
denied relief on both the grievance and appeal. 1 R. 126, 142.
Mr. Barrett then sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the rejection of
his mail violated his freedom of speech under the First Amendment and his right
1
Randall Workman, the current warden of OSP, has been automatically
substituted for Mr. Sirmons as the correct party under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 25(d).
-2-
to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. 1 R. 140, 143-44. Defendants
Orman, Sirmons, and Morton moved to dismiss the suit under Rule 12(b)(6),
arguing that: the violation of prison procedure alone does not constitute a
constitutional violation; Mr. Barrett allegedly tried to extort a settlement; the
complaint did not personally link Defendants Sirmons and Morton to the alleged
constitutional violation; and Defendants were entitled to immunity under the
Eleventh Amendment. 1 R. 208-16. Defendant Williams moved to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(2) and (6), based on the lack of personal jurisdiction and his lack of
any personal participation. 1 R. 230-33. The district court granted both motions
to dismiss in a single order. Barrett v. Orman, No. CIV-09-64-FHS-SPS, 2009
WL 5101959, at *1 (E.D. Okla. Dec. 16, 2009). The court granted Mr. Williams’s
motion because the complaint failed to allege any personal participation. Id. at
*1. As to Defendants Orman, Sirmons, and Morton, the court found that Mr.
Barrett failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. According to the
district court, the “amended complaint only alleges that defendants failed to
follow policy regarding returned mail.” Id. at *2. Because a “violation of a
prison regulation cannot rise to the level of a constitutional violation,” the court
granted these defendants’ motion to dismiss. Id. Separately, the district court
denied Mr. Barrett’s motion to amend his complaint. 1 R. 8.
Mr. Barrett appeals, arguing that the district court erred in three respects: in
construing the nature of his cause of action and not liberally construing his
-3-
pleadings; in granting the motion to dismiss as to Defendants Orman, Sirmons,
and Morton based on the finding that he only alleged a violation of prison
regulations; and in granting the motion to dismiss as to Defendant Williams.
Aplt. Br. at 3. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
“We review de novo the district court’s grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss.” Peterson v. Grisham, 594 F.3d 723, 727 (10th Cir. 2010). We accept as
true well-pleaded factual allegations, but also consider whether “they plausibly
give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949-50
(2009). A complaint does not “suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of
further factual enhancement.” Id. at 1949 (internal alterations, citations, and
quotations omitted). But dismissal is not appropriate where the complaint
contains “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Although a violation of a prison regulation is not automatically a
constitutional violation, Gaines v. Stenseng, 292 F.3d 1222, 1225 (10th Cir. 2002),
Mr. Barrett nonetheless stated a valid constitutional claim even without the liberal
pleading standards typically accorded to pro se litigants. 2 In both his original and
2
“A pro se litigant’s pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to a
less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). If the district court “can
reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim,” the court should excuse such
deficiencies as “the plaintiff’s failure to cite proper legal authority, his confusion
of various legal theories, his poor syntax and sentence construction, or his
unfamiliarity with pleading requirements.” Id. “In addition, pro se litigants are
-4-
amended complaints, Mr. Barrett clearly and repeatedly couched his claim in terms
of constitutional violations. 1 R. 15, 17-19, 140, 143-44. Neither the original nor
the amended complaint ever mentioned a violation of prison regulations. 1 R. 10-
22, 138-46. In other pleadings, Mr. Barrett provided multiple, valid case citations
in support of his theory that the rejection of his incoming mail without notice, a
statement of reasons, and an opportunity to be heard violated his First and
Fourteenth Amendment rights. 1 R. 30, 151-52, 243-45, 297-300.
Of course, even under the more stringent Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard,
Mr. Barrett did not need to cite specific cases in his complaint to survive a Rule
12(b)(6) motion. Rather, a complaint’s facts must state a facially plausible claim.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. The alleged facts in Mr. Barrett’s complaints—that
specific incoming mail was being rejected without any notice, statement of
reasons, or opportunity to be heard—at least stated a plausible claim under the
Supreme Court’s decision in Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974),
overruled on other grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989). In
Martinez, the Supreme Court held that prisoners’ First Amendment right to receive
uncensored correspondence, “even though qualified of necessity by the
circumstance of imprisonment,” is a liberty interest “protected from arbitrary
to be given reasonable opportunity to remedy the defects in their pleadings.” Id.at 1110 n.3. Nonetheless, the district court need not “assume the role of advocate
for the pro se litigant” nor relieve the pro se plaintiff of his basic obligation to
provide sufficient facts on which to base a claim. Id. at 1110.
-5-
governmental invasion.” Id. at 418. To protect this liberty interest, “the decision
to censor or withhold delivery of a particular letter must be accompanied by
minimum procedural safeguards.” Id. at 417. In Martinez, this procedural
threshold was satisfied by requirements that “an inmate be notified of the rejection
of a letter written by or addressed to him, that the author of that letter be given a
reasonable opportunity to protest that decision, and that complaints be referred to a
prison official other than the person who originally disapproved the
correspondence.” Id. at 418-19; see also Jolivet v. Deland, 966 F.2d 573, 575 n.5
(10th Cir. 1992). Martinez’s procedural requirements survived Thornburgh.
Jacklovich v. Simmons, 392 F.3d 420, 433 (10th Cir. 2004). The confusion in this
case may arise from the close similarity between ODOC’s mail regulations and
those “procedural safeguards” that Martinez approved. 3 Still, that similarity does
not excuse ODOC’s constitutional obligation to provide “minimum procedural
safeguards.” Whatever the merits of Mr. Barrett’s claim or other grounds for
dismissal under Rule 12, the facts alleged “nudged” his claim against Defendants
Orman, Workman, and Morton “across the line from conceivable to plausible.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
However, the claim against Defendant Williams lacked such facts. The
amended complaint alleges Mr. Williams’s position as director of the Oregon
3
Although Mr. Barrett’s prison grievances focused on violations of prison
regulations and not constitutional claims, Defendants have not asserted the
affirmative defense of non-exhaustion. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007).
-6-
Department of Corrections and recites his personal participation in and liability for
the constitutional violations. 1 R. 139-40. Such a “pleading that offers labels and
conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Allegations of Mr. Williams’s involvement are no more than “naked assertion[s].”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557. Because the allegations against Mr. Williams do not
show an affirmative link between the constitutional deprivation and his personal
participation, Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063, 1069 (10th Cir. 2009), Mr.
Barrett failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted against Mr.
Williams.
Lastly, we review a district court’s denial of a motion to amend a complaint
for abuse of discretion. Fields v. Okla. State Penitentiary, 511 F.3d 1109, 1113
(10th Cir. 2007). The district court denied Mr. Barrett’s motion to amend because
it failed to set forth what had been amended in the new complaint, 1 R. 8, as
required by local rule. See E.D. Okla. LCvR 7.1(o). The court did not abuse its
discretion in denying the motion to amend for failure to comply with local rules.
See Lambertsen v. Utah Dep’t of Corr., 79 F.3d 1024, 1029-30 (10th Cir. 1996).
We AFFIRM the grant of Defendant Williams’s motion to dismiss, AFFIRM
the denial of Plaintiff’s motion to amend, and REVERSE the district court’s grant
of the motion to dismiss by Defendants Orman, Workman, and Morton. We
GRANT appellant’s motion to proceed without prepayment of fees and remind
-7-
appellant that he is obligated to continue to make partial payments until the filing
fee is paid in full.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-8-