Lewis v. Clark
663 F. App'x 697
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Raymond Lewis, a pretrial detainee at Natrona County Detention Center (NCDC) from May–Sept. 2013, sued Lt. Jerry Clark and unnamed deputies under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging various First and Fourteenth Amendment violations related to library access and mail policies.
- District court dismissed Lewis’s amended complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); this Court previously affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded several claims for further consideration.
- On remand the district court ordered a Martinez report, then dismissed all official-capacity claims, dismissed Clark in his individual capacity, and dismissed claims against unnamed deputies because Lewis failed to identify them.
- Lewis’s challenged actions included: a one-time denial of law-library access (allegedly retaliatory), NCDC’s blanket ban on inmate-to-inmate correspondence, and a ten-page limit on mailed materials.
- The district court found adequate procedural safeguards for withheld mail (post-deprivation notice/grievance), and applied Turner to assess First Amendment/prison-regulatory challenges.
- On appeal this panel reviewed de novo, construed pro se filings liberally, and affirmed the district court in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Library-access retaliation (one-time denial) | Lewis: deputy denied library access in retaliation for grievances, violating First/14th Amendments | Defendants: allegation describes only one unnamed deputy act; no policy/custom; Monell liability not pleaded | Dismissed — one-off unnamed-actor allegation cannot establish official-capacity §1983 claim or municipal/custom liability |
| Due process — denial of library access | Lewis: NCDC handbook created a protected liberty/property interest in library use; denial violated procedural due process | Defendants: no constitutional or state-created interest in library access; handbook language insufficient to create a liberty/property interest | Dismissed — no protected liberty or property interest alleged; thus no procedural due process claim |
| Ban on inmate-to-inmate correspondence | Lewis: ban prevents family communication (son) and is not justified | Defendants: ban is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests (safety/security) under Turner | Dismissed — complaint fails to plead facts plausibly showing the ban lacks a rational relation to penological interests |
| Ten-page mail limit — property and First Amendment claims | Lewis: NCDC rejected mailed research materials under an unpublished ten-page limit, depriving property and speech/association without due process | Defendants: handbook provides employees discretion and postdeprivation notice; Turner analysis supports page limits as tied to security/resource concerns and alternatives exist | Dismissed — adequate postdeprivation remedy (grievance); First Amendment claim fails under Turner (rational relation, alternatives, burden) |
| Procedural challenges and individual-capacity claims | Lewis: requests to amend and compel were wrongly denied; Clark individually liable | Defendants: magistrate order nondispositive and unobjected-to; Lewis failed to allege Clark’s personal participation; unnamed deputies not identified | Waived/ dismissed — Lewis failed to timely object to magistrate order (waiver); no plausible allegations of Clark’s personal involvement; unnamed defendants properly dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires policy, custom, or final policymaker)
- City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112 (limits on municipal liability and final policymaker concept)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (test for constitutionality of prison regulations affecting constitutional rights)
- Boles v. Neet, 486 F.3d 1177 (10th Cir. application of Turner factors)
- Al-Owhali v. Holder, 687 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. dismissal where complaint failed to plead ban lacked legitimate penological objective)
- Cosco v. Uphoff, 195 F.3d 1221 (prison regulations do not create liberty interests)
- Penrod v. Zavaras, 94 F.3d 1399 (no constitutional right to unfettered law-library use)
- Jacklovich v. Simmons, 392 F.3d 420 (procedural safeguards required for withholding/censoring incoming mail)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (meaningful postdeprivation remedy cures due-process property deprivation)
- Davis v. TXO Prod. Corp., 929 F.2d 1515 (amended complaint supersedes prior complaints)
- Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (authorizes court-ordered investigation/report of prisoner §1983 claims)
- Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178 (standard for reviewing Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063 (use and limits of an uncontroverted Martinez report)