Skip navigation
× You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.

Dismissal Reversed on Disciplinary Segregation Case Where Fact Issues Remained

The U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, partly reversing the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Mexico, affirmed its prior decision in Gaines
v. Stensberg, 292 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 2002), holding that dismissal of a
42 U.S.C. §1983 civil rights suit was inappropriate where fact issues about
the prisoner's placement in disciplinary segregation remained unresolved.
Raymond Taylor, a New Mexico prisoner in the Torrance County Detention
Facility, a Corrections Corporation of America prison, sued numerous prison
officials for keeping him in disciplinary segregation for two and one-half
months past his scheduled date of release from segregation without
providing him notice or a hearing on the additional time. He also
complained that the prison law library did not provide him with materials
to pursue an attorney malpractice suit. The district court dismissed the
lawsuit under 28 U.S.C. §19195(e)(2) and Fed.R.Civ.Proc 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim. Taylor appealed.

The Court of Appeals, citing Gaines, held that Taylor should have been
permitted to show that his confinement in disciplinary segregation past his
scheduled release date without notice or a hearing constituted "an atypical
and significant hardship." See: Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995).
Taylor could do this by demonstrating the typical conditions of
disciplinary segregation at the prison.

The appeals court, however, affirmed dismissal of the law library claim.
Citing Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996), the Tenth Circuit held
that prisons are not required to help a prisoner litigate attorney
malpractice suits.

The district court's ruling was affirmed in part and reversed in part, and
remanded for further proceedings. This was not a ruling on the merits of
the case. This case is published in the Federal Appendix and is subject to
rules governing unpublished cases. See: Moore v. Johnson, 49 Fed.Appx. 265
(10th Cir. 2002).

As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case

Moore v. Johnson

[U] Moore v. Johnson, 49 Fed.Appx. 265 (10th Cir. 10/22/2002)

[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

[2] No. 02-2012

[3] 49 Fed.Appx. 265

[4] October 22, 2002

[5] ROBERT CHARLES MOORE; RONALD L. BEACHUM, PLAINTIFFS - APPELLANTS,
v.
GARY JOHNSON, GOVERNOR, STATE OF NEW MEXICO; ROBERT PERRY, SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS; KEN BATSON, LEA COUNTY COMMISSIONER; JOE R. WILLIAMS, SENIOR WARDEN, LEA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACILITY; SANDRA MCFADDEN, PROGRAMS WARDEN, LEA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACILITY; BARRY HERTZOG, SECURITY WARDEN, LEA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACILITY; PATRICK SNEDEKER, SECURITY WARDEN, LEA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACILITY; LINDA BRAUX, LIBRARIAN, LEA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACILITY; CURTIS LANDRUM, FORMER JOB COORDINATOR, LEA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACILITY; CATHERLINE BRYANT, JOB COORDINATOR, LEA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACILITY; MARK DONATELLI, ATTORNEY; WACKENHUT CORRECTIONS CORPORATION; MICHAEL MARTIN, CHIEF OF SECURITY, LEA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACILITY; LEA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO, DEFENDANTS - APPELLEES.

[6] D. C. No. CIV-01-695-MV/ JDS (D. New Mexico)

[7] Before Seymour, Henry, and Briscoe, Circuit Judges.

[8] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robert H. Henry, Circuit Judge.

[9] ORDER AND JUDGMENT*fn1

[10] 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.

[11] Robert Charles Moore and Ronald Lee Beachum appeal from the district court's rejection of their "Objection and Partial Compliance to Court's Memorandum, Opinion, and Order," which the district court properly construed as a motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Appellants appeal their claim that the State of New Mexico violated their rights by entering into a contract with Lee County to house state prisoners in violation of the New Mexico Procurement Code. The district court previously entered a dismissal of appellants' complaint for failure to state a claim for relief under 28 U. S. C. § 1915(e)(2) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).