Leatherwood v. Rios, 705 F. App'x 735

Background

Michael Leatherwood, an Oklahoma state inmate at Lawton Correctional Facility (LCF), sued under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 against LCF officials (warden Rios and assistant warden Berg) and Keefe Commissary Network plus a Keefe manager, alleging unequal commissary pricing/selection compared to DOC-operated medium-security prisons.
He claimed the assignment to the privately operated LCF resulted in disparate treatment violating his Equal Protection and Due Process rights, and alleged a conspiracy between DOC/LCF and Keefe.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The magistrate judge recommended dismissal; the district court adopted that recommendation, dismissing claims (LCF defendants with prejudice; Keefe defendants without prejudice) and denying leave to file a third amended complaint as moot.
On appeal, Leatherwood waived review of his due process and § 1985 claims by failing to object; the Tenth Circuit limited its review to the § 1983 equal protection and § 1983 conspiracy claims.
The court applied the Iqbal plausibility standard, construed pro se filings liberally but required sufficient factual allegations, and affirmed dismissal and denial of the third motion to amend.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants violated Equal Protection by providing fewer/ pricier commissary items at LCF than DOC prisons	Leatherwood: LCF commissary offers fewer items and charges higher prices than DOC commissaries, resulting in disparate treatment of similarly situated medium-security inmates	Defendants: They lack authority over DOC-operated commissaries; cannot be liable for disparities between jurisdictions	Dismissed: Plaintiff failed to allege defendants had authority over DOC commissaries or treated him differently than other LCF inmates; no plausible Equal Protection claim
Whether Leatherwood pleaded a § 1983 conspiracy between LCF/Keefe and DOC actors	Leatherwood: Defendants conspired to deprive him of equal protection	Defendants: Allegations are conclusory, no specific facts showing agreement or concerted action	Dismissed: Conspiracy allegations were conclusory and no underlying constitutional violation was adequately pleaded
Whether Keefe acted under color of state law in operating the commissary	Leatherwood: Proposed to add facts showing Keefe acted under color of state law	Keefe: Existing complaint did not sufficiently allege state-action for private actor	Not reached as independent ground; court noted deficiency but affirmed dismissal on other grounds
Whether the district court abused discretion by denying leave to file a third amended complaint	Leatherwood: Sought to add DOC Director and state-action allegations to cure defects after R&R	Defendants: Motion was untimely, filed after lengthy litigation and discovery; amendments not based on newly discovered facts; serial pleading tactics	Affirmed: Denial not an abuse of discretion — motion untimely, inadequate explanation for delay, and amendments could have been raised earlier

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: must state a plausible claim with factual content beyond labels and conclusions)
Citizen Ctr. v. Gessler, 770 F.3d 900 (10th Cir. 2014) (officials limited to authority in their jurisdiction cannot be liable for disparities caused by other jurisdictions)
Brooks v. Gaenzle, 614 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2010) (conclusory conspiracy allegations insufficient; must plead specific facts showing agreement)
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) (pro se complaints liberally construed but must allege sufficient facts)
Thompson v. Gibson, 289 F.3d 1218 (10th Cir. 2002) (ability to purchase commissary items is a privilege, not a constitutional right)
Minter v. Prime Equipment Co., 451 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2006) (denial of leave to amend reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Frank v. U.S. West, Inc., 3 F.3d 1357 (10th Cir. 1993) (untimeliness alone can justify denial of leave to amend)