Stouffer v. Saffle , 6 F. App'x 790 ( 2001 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
APR 2 2001
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
B. J. STOUFFER, II,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
vs. No. 00-7049
(D.C. No. 97-CV-451-B)
JAMES SAFFLE, Director of (E.D. Okla.)
Department of Corrections; DENNIS
COTNER, Medical Director; JAMES
D. BEDNAR, Director of O.I.D.S.; J.
BYNUM, M.D., Administrator, Griffin
Memorial Hospital a/k/a Marlene. E.
Bynum; O. PERURENA, M.D.,
Administrator Oklahoma Memorial
Hospital; ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL,
Administrator; CORRECTIONAL
MEDICAL SERVICES; JAMES A.
BERRY; ALBERT HOCH, JR.;
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
SERVICES; EASTERN STATE
HOSPITAL,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, KELLY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. **
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge
**
panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material
B.J. Stouffer, II, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals from the
district court order dismissing his federal civil rights, RICO, and pendent state
law claims. 18 U.S.C. § 1964; 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985. We affirm for
substantially the same reasons given by the district court.
Mr. Stouffer is presently incarcerated in an Oklahoma county detention
center. 1 Mr. Stouffer, seeking injunctive and monetary relief and a stay of
execution under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, filed suit against a state human services
director, Oklahoma Department of Corrections officers, public defenders, doctors,
hospital administrators, and medical service providers. Mr. Stouffer alleged (1)
ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) confiscation of legal materials and denial of
access to the court’s library; (3) inadequate grievance procedures; (4) denial of
equal access to programs, rights, and privileges afforded other prisoners; (5)
double celling; and (6) denial of medical treatment. Mr. Stouffer’s complaint also
alleged a civil rights conspiracy, a RICO claim, and several pendent state law
claims.
assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th
Cir. R. 34.1 (G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
1
Mr. Stouffer was on death row in an Oklahoma state penitentiary at the
time the district court issued its order. Subsequently, Mr. Stouffer was granted a
writ of habeas corpus for ineffective assistance of counsel. See Stouffer v.
Reynolds, 214 F.3d 1231 (10th Cir. 2000).
-2-
The district court ordered a special report by the Oklahoma Department of
Corrections reviewing the factual basis of Mr. Stouffer’s claims. Thereafter,
upon each of the defendants’ motions to dismiss or for summary judgment, and
upon the court’s own motion to consider dismissal, the district court concluded
that Mr. Stouffer’s allegations were “vague and conclusory, and . . . do not rise to
the level of a constitutional violation.” R. doc. 222, at 23. Accordingly, the
district court dismissed Mr. Stouffer’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
as frivolous. Id. at 24. On appeal, Mr. Stouffer challenges the district court’s
dismissal of each of the aforementioned claims. 2
Because the district court dismissed Mr. Stouffer’s action after receiving
the special report, R. doc. 132, reviewing affidavits, R. doc 136, 140, 143,
answers to interrogatories, R. doc. 136, and medical records, R. doc. 143, and
considering Mr. Stouffer’s responses to the various motions, R. doc. 146, 147,
149, 150, 151, we “treat[] this as a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and not as a
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Raymer v. Enright, 113 F.3d 172, 174
n.1 (10th Cir. 1997). We have reviewed the special report, affidavits, answers to
interrogatories, and medical records in the light most favorable to Mr. Stouffer,
and have reviewed Mr. Stouffer’s responses to the various motions. Simms v.
2
We grant Mr. Stouffer’s motion to supplement his brief and have
reviewed Mr. Stouffer’s supplemented brief in considering his appeal. All other
pending motions before this court are denied.
-3-
Oklahoma ex. rel. Dep’t of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Servs., 165 F.3d
1321, 1326 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 815 (1999). Having done so, we
hold that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that each of the
defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986) (“By its very terms, this standard
provides that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the
parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary
judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.”
(emphasis in original)); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Mr.
Stouffer is required to continue making monthly payment of the filing fee. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
Affirmed.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-4-