Rivera v. Hassler

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
OCT 24 2003
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
RODOLFO RIVERA,
Plaintiff-Appellant, Nos. 03-1232 and 03-1272
v. (D. Colorado)
ANGELA HASSLER, Officer, (D.C. No. 03-Z-185)
Arrowhead Correctional Facility
Housing Officer; CYNTHIA POOL,
Officer, Arrowhead Correctional
Facility Security Officer; CONNIE
NORRIS, Arrowhead Correctional
Facility Librarian,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before EBEL, HENRY, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to decide this case on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted
without oral argument.
Rodolfo Rivera, formerly a state prisoner at the Fremont Correctional
Facility in Canon City, Colorado, appeals the district court’s sua sponte dismissal
of his complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mr. Rivera claims that as a
result of defendants’ actions, he suffered harm at the hands of his co-inmates and
through reclassification to a higher security level. The district court dismissed his
claims as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
I. DISCUSSION
In Plunk v. Givens, 234 F.3d 1128, 1130 (10th Cir. 2000), we noted this
Court had not yet determined whether a dismissal pursuant to § 1915A on the
ground that the complaint is legally frivolous is reviewed de novo or for abuse of
discretion. We “need not resolve that question at this juncture, however, because
our review of the entire record in this case . . . reveals no hint of reversible error
under either standard.” Id. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the district
court’s dismissal of all of Mr. Rivera’s claims, but we note that as to three of the
four claims, we affirm the dismissal on the basis that Mr. Rivera has failed to
state a claim for which relief can be granted, rather than for filing a frivolous
claim.
-2-
In his complaint, Mr. Rivera asserted the following claims arising from his
incarceration at the Arrowhead Correctional Facility:
(1) In violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, Defendant
Officer Angela Hassler harassed him, teased him, singled him out, and falsely
reported him for stalking her. As a result of these comments, he was harassed by
co-inmates as a homosexual. The district court rejected this claim, noting that
verbal abuse cannot state a constitutional deprivation. In addition, the court noted
that transfer to a higher security facility does not subject Mr. Rivera to a
significant and atypical hardship. We agree.
The alleged verbal abuse, if true, is deplorable and unprofessional.
Although we can imagine situations where verbal abuse might amount to the level
of cruel and unusual punishment, we do not believe this case presents such a
situation. Cf. Collins v. Cundy, 603 F.2d 825, 827 (10th Cir. 1979) (holding
sheriff’s threat to hang prisoner following prisoner’s request to mail some legal
correspondence did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment). As to Mr.
Hassler’s Fourteenth Amendment claim, we note that in the prison context, the
due process clause “affords . . . no greater protection” to a prisoner than does the
Eighth Amendment. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 327 (1986). Thus, our
conclusion that Ms. Hassler’s conduct did not amount to cruel and unusual
punishment properly disposes of Mr. Rivera’s due process claim as well. We hold
-3-
that the appellant’s complaint has failed to state a claim under § 1983, but we do
not hold that the claim was frivolous.
(2) Defendant Connie Norris, the prison librarian, retaliated against Mr.
Rivera by denying him access to legal materials, specifically the use of a
typewriter. The district court noted that inmates do not have an absolute right to
use a typewriter in connection with the right of access to the courts. We agree
that this claim is frivolous. Twyman v. Crisp, 584 F.2d 352, 358 (10th Cir. 1978)
(“Access to the courts does not include a federally protected right to use a
typewriter.”).
(3) On October 19, 2001, Officer Pool allegedly singled him out by
suggesting he “think twice” about sitting in a particular location. Rec. doc. 1, att.
6. He then got up and moved tables. In his appellate brief he states that Officer
Pool “ordered” him to move tables, thus precluding him from engaging in
Fellowship with the Praise and Worship team during dinner. Aplt’s Br. at 6. On
appeal Mr. Rivera suggests that these actions violated his First Amendment right
to the free exercise of religion and served as retaliation for his previous reporting
of Officer Hassler, in violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Mr. Rivera gives no indication of how his moving dinner tables violated his free
exercise of religion and supplies only conclusory allegations. Mr. Rivera has
failed to state a claim as to a violation of § 1983.
-4-
(4) Mr. Rivera also contends that all of the defendants falsely accused him
of being a stalker, which resulted in his transfer to another facility, his placement
in a higher security unit, and his categorization as a candidate for participation in
sex offender treatment when he was transferred to the Fremont Correctional
Facility. When he was transferred, he was evaluated as a sex offender, but
notably not categorized as one. The facility also recommended he participate in
the sexual offender treatment program.
Mr. Rivera alleges no “specific facts showing retaliation because of the
exercise of [his] constitutional rights,” Peterson v. Shanks, 149 F.3d 1140, 1144
(10th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). As we have previously
stated, “[t]he due process rights of prisoners are subject to reasonable limitation
or restriction in light of the legitimate security concerns of the institution, and
‘the transfer of an inmate to less amenable and more restrictive quarters for
nonpunitive reasons is well within the terms of confinement ordinarily
contemplated by a prison sentence.’” Penrod v. Zavaras, 94 F.3d 1399, 1406
(10th Cir. 1996) (quoting Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 468, (1983) (internal
citation omitted)); see also Templeman v. Gunter, 16 F.3d 367, 369 (10th Cir.
1994) (holding that Colorado prison regulations do not create a liberty interest in
an inmate’s prison placement classification). We affirm the dismissal of this
claim for failure to state a claim.
-5-
II. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Rivera’s
complaint under § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim on claims (1), (3), and
(4), and for frivolousness for claim (2).
Entered for the Court,
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
-6-