Bad Heart Bull v. State of Wyoming

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JAN 23 2004
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
STEVEN THUNDERING BAD
HEART BULL, also known as
Steven Dewayne Rands,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 03-8025
(D.C. No. 03-CV-33-B)
STATE OF WYOMING; GOSHEN (D. Wyo.)
COUNTY; JUDY UPHOFF, Wyoming
Department of Corrections Director,
in her official capacity; SCOTT
ABBOTT, Wyoming Department of
Corrections State Penitentiary Warden,
in his official capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before MURPHY and PORFILIO , Circuit Judges, and BRORBY , Senior Circuit
Judge.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
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.
Plaintiff Steven Thundering Bad Heart Bull, a prisoner of the State of
Wyoming appearing pro se, appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his
civil rights complaint. We affirm.
Plaintiff was convicted under the name Steven Dewayne Rands.
Subsequent to his conviction, he was legally adopted and was given the name
Steven Thundering Bad Heart Bull. He filed this suit, alleging that he is being
denied his constitutional right to use his adoptive name in prison. According to
plaintiff, prison officials told him that they could not recognize his adoptive name
because it was not on his mittimus papers and that he needed to get a court order.
The district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, holding that plaintiff
had failed to show that defendants had violated his federal constitutional rights.
The court suggested that plaintiff might choose to seek relief in the state court
where he was sentenced.
On appeal, plaintiff argues: (1) that the district court should have ordered
defendants to recognize his adoptive name; and (2) that he is being denied access
to the law library or legal help.
-2-
We have reviewed plaintiff’s brief and the record on appeal. Like the
district court, we are sympathetic to plaintiff’s desire to be called by his adoptive
name. However, we find no error in the district court’s decision, and we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. Plaintiff did not raise his second issue
in the district court, and we decline to address it for the first time on appeal.
See Singleton v. Wulff , 428 U.S. 106, 120 (1976).
The motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is granted. Appellant is
reminded that he remains obligated to make partial payments toward the filing fee
until it is paid in full. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The
district court’s dismissal for failure to state claim counts as a strike under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (g). See Jennings v. Natrona County Det. Ctr.
Med. Facility , 175 F.3d 775, 781 (10th Cir. 1999). The mandate shall issue
forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-