Guinn v. Zavaras ( 1996 )


Menu:
  • No. 96-1179, Guinn v. Zavaras, Order and Judgment.
    Attached Order of Dismissal and for Sanctions received from Judge Sparr is not
    available electronically.
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    Filed 10/29/96
    TENTH CIRCUIT
    _____________________
    BILL RAY GUINN,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.                                                     No. 96-1179
    (D.C. No. 95-S-2912)
    ARISTEDES ZAVARAS, BRAD                               (D. Colorado)
    ROCKWELL,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    _____________________
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    _____________________
    Before BRORBY, EBEL and HENRY, Circuit Judges.
    _____________________
    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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
    ordered submitted without oral argument.
    Mr. Guinn is an inmate in the Colorado Prison System. Mr. Guinn initiated
    this pro se civil rights action by filing a twenty-seven-page complaint with
    *
    This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the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.
    twenty-nine attached pages of exhibits. The trial court dismissed the action as
    frivolous and Mr. Guinn appeals this decision.
    The gist of Mr. Guinn's complaint is the defendants failed to give him as
    much writing paper and as many manilla envelopes as he needed to "maintain his
    numerous, pending civil actions." He alleged this refusal to give him more free
    clerical supplies beyond the monthly maximum given to him by the prison ("50
    sheets of writing paper and 3 manilla envelopes") resulted in the dismissal of six
    actions pending before the United States Supreme Court and the United States
    Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
    The trial court, after finding Mr. Guinn had failed to pay previous sanctions
    of $120 and to adhere to the pleading requirements of Rule 8 (short and plain
    statement of the grounds) by filing prolix,vague and unintelligible pleadings,
    concluded the regulations limiting free clerical supplies are necessary to balance
    the legitimate interest of inmate litigants with budgetary considerations and
    concerns of abuse. Harrell v. Keohane, 
    621 F.2d 1059
    , 1061 (10th Cir. 1980);
    Twyman v. Crisp, 
    584 F.2d 352
    , 359 (10th Cir. 1978). The trial court further
    restricted Mr. Guinn from initiating a civil action in that court without the
    representation of an attorney or first obtaining leave of the court.
    Mr. Guinn appeals this decision asserting he is entitled to "unrestricted
    access to ... writing paper and manilla envelopes in amounts, adequate, to enable
    -2-
    him to maintain his pending civil actions."
    Mr. Guinn's arguments lack merit. Lewis v. Casey, 
    116 S. Ct. 2174
     (1996),
    is dispositive. Lewis holds an inmate must demonstrate the lack of free clerical
    supplies "hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim." See 
    id. at 2180
    . Basically
    the Court held the law "does not guarantee [an inmate] the wherewithal to
    transform [himself] into [a litigating engine] capable of filing [any type of
    action,] rather ... it requires [the suit hindered must attack the inmate's sentence],
    directly or collaterally, [or] challenge the conditions of confinement." 
    Id. at 2181-82
    . Mr. Guinn failed to make this showing.
    Mr. Guinn failed to attack the additional analysis of the trial court and
    failed to show it was in error.
    The decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED for substantially the same
    reasons set forth therein. A copy of this decision is attached hereto.
    Mr. Guinn's "Emergency Motion For Injunctive Relief," filed October 15,
    1996, is denied.
    Entered for the Court:
    WADE BRORBY
    United States Circuit Judge
    -3-