Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178

Gee, a Wyoming State Penitentiary inmate, filed a pro se §1983 action alleging First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations against WSP officials.
The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim and statute-of-limitations/precedent-based grounds.
The court granted leave to amend for some non-precluded claims but dismissed all others with prejudice.
On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed in part (preclusion/time-barred claims) and reversed/remanded for amendment on other claims.
The opinion discusses Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard, and whether district court properly evaluated evidence outside the complaint.
On remand, Gee should be allowed to seek leave to amend those non-precluded, timely claims under Twombly/Iqbal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Plausibility of First/Eighth Amendment claims under Twombly/Iqbal.	Gee’s allegations state plausible constitutional violations.	Claims are not plausible and fail to meet pleading standards.	Some claims plausibly stated and should proceed; others rejected as not plausible.
Whether district court erred by reviewing outside materials (Martinez materials) to dismiss.	Relying on outside documents improperly refutes facts.	Jacobsen exception permits consideration of central documents.	District court erred; reversal for amendment opportunity; proceed based on complaint alone on remand.
Whether the Eighth Amendment transport claim is time-barred and tolling should apply.	Equitable tolling should apply; timely filing equitably tolled.	Claim untimely; tolling not established.	Remand to determine whether Wyoming would recognize equitable tolling and applicability to Gee’s allegations.
Whether claims were properly barred by preclusion or limitations, warranting dismissal with prejudice.	Some claims could be amended to cure defects; not all should be precluded.	Preclusion and time-barred claims should be affirmed.	Precluded/time-barred portions affirmed; remainder remanded with leave to amend.

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading a claim)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility applies to prisoner §1983 complaints)
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1987) (restriction of inmate rights must be reasonably related to penological interests)
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (U.S. 1996) (actual injury required for access-to-courts claims)
Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (U.S. 1989) (prison regulations may restrict rights if reasonable in context)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (deliberate indifference standard for medical care)
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1995) (detention conditions not ordinarily a liberty interest unless atypical)
Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (U.S. 1976) (liberty interests in incarceration and transfer decisions)
Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (U.S. 2007) (limits on use of extrinsic materials; Tellabs standard in pleading)
Jacobsen v. Deseret Book Co., 287 F.3d 936 (10th Cir. 2002) (central documents may be considered in Rule 12(b)(6) if incorporated by reference)
GFF Corp. v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 130 F.3d 1384 (10th Cir. 1997) (limits on reliance on outside materials in Rule 12(b)(6) analysis)
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) (opportunity to respond when district court relies on outside materials)