Ratliff v. Fields ( 1999 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUN 11 1999
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
GARY WAYNE RATLIFF,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 98-7119
(D. Ct. No. 96-CV-548-S)
LARRY FIELDS, Director of OK. (E.D. Okla.)
DOC; RON WARD, Warden of the
Oklahoma State Pen.; JOHN EAST,
SCM Supervisor,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
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)(2); 10th
Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
This appeal is from an order of the district court dismissing plaintiff
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This 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.
Ratliff’s pro se civil rights complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as
frivolous under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Petitioner appeals on the
ground that the district court erred in failing to find constitutional violations in
the series of allegations made in the district court. Further, on appeal plaintiff
adds a series of additional allegations that were not presented to the district court.
We AFFIRM.
Because plaintiff proceeded below and proceeds in this court pro se, we
must, as the district court did, construe liberally the complaint, the notice of
appeal, and all filings in this court. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21
(1972); Riddle v. Mondragon, 83 F.3d 1197, 1202 (10th Cir. 1996). Under this
liberal construction rule, we determine that the petitioner raised in the district
court issues related to the conditions of his confinement during the period of time
that he was housed in the East Cell House of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary. He
also alleged in the district court constitutional violations with respect to his prison
security classification at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary. In this court, plaintiff
has filed a brief and a “petition for declaratory judgment, temporary restraining
order, and/or preliminary injunction” that raise a series of additional issues that
were not presented to the district court. The liberal construction rule does not
relieve plaintiff of the duty to raise issues in the district court as a threshold
requirement to consideration in this court. See Ogden v. San Juan County, 32
-2-
F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994). Therefore, we consider only those issues that
were presented for determination to the district court. See Tele-Communications,
Inc. v. Commissioner, 104 F.3d 1229, 1232 (10th Cir. 1997); Lyons v. Jefferson
Bank & Trust, 994 F.2d 716, 720-21 (10th Cir. 1993).
Some of the allegations in the district court were clearly efforts to sue
defendants in their official capacities as Department of Corrections officials.
These claims are all barred by the Eleventh Amendment. A damage suit against a
state official in his or her official capacity is an action against the state.
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 (1985); Whitney v. New Mexico, 113
F.3d 1170, 1173 (10th Cir. 1997). We will not consider those damage claims
against the defendants in their official capacities.
Plaintiff’s allegations with respect to the conditions in the East Cell House
at Oklahoma State Penitentiary are the subject of an on-going class action
currently before the Eastern District of Oklahoma in Battle v. Anderson, No. CIV
72-095-B. When there is an existing class action, individual suits alleging
unconstitutional prison conditions related to the same facility may not be brought.
See McNeil v. Guthrie, 945 F.2d 1163, 1165-66 (10th Cir. 1991). Further, the
temporary housing issue raised in this appeal was raised by class counsel in
Battle, and this court found that the temporary uses of the East Cell House did not
result in a constitutional violation. See Battle v. Anderson, 788 F.2d 1421, 1427-
-3-
28 (10th Cir. 1986). To the extent that plaintiff is alleging that individual
defendant prison officials acted with “deliberate indifference” to his
constitutional rights, plaintiff has failed to show that any of the defendants were
deliberately indifferent to this plaintiff.
Plaintiff has further alleged that he was denied his rights to due process of
law when he was housed in a maximum security facility during the time that he
was classified as a medium security inmate. There is no constitutional right to
incarceration in any particular prison or portion of a prison and changes in
security classifications involve no Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest. See
Twyman v. Crisp, 584 F.2d 352, 355-56 (10th Cir. 1978) (citing Meachum v.
Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 226-27 (1976)). Thus, petitioner has failed to allege a
deprivation of any constitutional rights relating to his security classification or his
housing within a particular area of the prison.
In the documents filed in this court on appeal, petitioner raises a series of
claims that include prison conditions in both the Oklahoma state prisons and in a
private prison facility, a deprivation of his right to access to the courts,
inadequate medical treatment, improper training and supervision of prison
officials, and various other allegations of constitutional deprivations. None of
these issues were raised in the district court. We therefore decline to address
these additional allegations. Plaintiff further alleges bias on the part of the
-4-
district court. We find no evidence of bias. We agree with the district court that
this action is frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The district court’s dismissal of
the complaint and our dismissal of the appeal count as two strikes under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Jennings v. Natrona County Detention Ctr. Med. Facility,
___ F.3d ___, 1999 WL 248634, at *4 (10th Cir. 1999). We affirm the order of
the district court and deny all relief on all of the various motions and petitions
filed in this court by this petitioner. AFFIRMED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT,
Deanell Reece Tacha
Circuit Judge
-5-