Skinner v. Glanz

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 27, 2007
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
GORDON TODD SKINNER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 07-5095
(D.C. No. 07-CV-0223-CVE-SAJ)
STANLEY GLANZ, Tulsa Sheriff; (N.D. Okla.)
TIM HARRIS, Tulsa D.A.; GORDON
MCALLISTER, Tulsa County Judge;
BRAD HENRY, Governor; JOHN
DOES, Unknown Director of ODOC
and Unknown Warden of LARC,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, McKAY, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Gordon Todd Skinner, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s
order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We exercise jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist 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not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
At the time Mr. Skinner filed his complaint, he was in custody at the David
L. Moss Criminal Justice Center (“DLMCHC”), the Tulsa County Jail Facility. In
Mr. Skinner’s complaint, he alleged that his life was in serious danger because he
was going to be transferred into the custody of the Oklahoma Department of
Corrections (“ODOC”) at the Lexington Assessment and Reception Center
(“LARC”), where his identity as a government informant had been made known to
gang members. He asserted also that he was being denied access to any form of a
law library and other materials needed to protect his legal needs. He sued Stanley
Ganz, Sheriff of Tulsa County; Tim Harris, Tulsa County District Attorney; and
Gordon McAllister, Tulsa County District Judge (“the Tulsa County defendants”);
as well as Brad Henry, Governor of Oklahoma; the unknown Director of the
ODOC; and the Unknown Warden of LARC. He sought injunctive relief in the
form of an order preventing his transfer into the custody of the ODOC and an
order allowing him access to the DLMCHC law library and to his legal
paperwork. While his complaint was pending, Mr. Skinner was transferred into
the custody of the ODOC. As a result, the district court dismissed Mr. Skinner’s
complaint because it determined that his request for injunctive relief against the
Tulsa County defendants was moot and that his complaint failed to state a claim
for relief against the remaining defendants.
Having reviewed Mr. Skinner’s brief, the record, and the relevant legal
authority, we conclude that the district court correctly decided this case.
-2-
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment for substantially the same
reasons stated in the district court’s Opinion and Order dated May 24, 2007. All
pending motions filed by Mr. Skinner are DENIED. We remind Mr. Skinner that
he remains obligated to make partial payments until his entire appellate filing fee
is paid.
Entered for the Court
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-3-