Pemberton v. Patton
673 F. App'x 860
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Paul Pemberton, an Oklahoma state prisoner at Davis Correctional Facility (a privately run CCA prison), sued multiple ODOC and CCA employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging: improper copying of legal papers (Fourth Amendment), interference with grievance process and retaliation (First Amendment), and denial of materials/time to prepare filings (access-to-courts).
- The district court allowed in forma pauperis (ifp) status and had the U.S. Marshals Service appointed to serve process; Pemberton provided only an address "in care of the Governor of Oklahoma."
- Marshals effectuated service on three ODOC defendants (Patton, Morton, Knutson); service on six other defendants (five CCA employees and former ODOC Director Jones) returned unexecuted.
- District court dismissed the six unserved defendants without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) for failure to serve, ruled official-capacity claims against ODOC defendants barred by Eleventh Amendment, dismissed claims against Morton as time-barred, and dismissed the served defendants with prejudice as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
- Pemberton moved to alter/amend (Rule 59(e)); the motion was denied. He appealed; the Tenth Circuit panel affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal of unserved defendants for failure to serve within Rule 4(m) was improper because Marshals should have served based on "in care of" Governor address and ifp status | Pemberton: Marshals had duty under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)/Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to find and serve defendants; Rule 4(j)(2)(A) service on chief executive was adequate | Defendants/District: Plaintiff provided insufficient/incorrect service information; Marshals are not required to locate defendants when plaintiff gives incomplete info | Affirmed: No abuse of discretion; plaintiff responsible for providing correct addresses; Rule 4(j)(2)(A) inapplicable to suits against individuals |
| Whether Eleventh Amendment bars claims | Pemberton: He sued ODOC defendants in their individual capacities, not officially | District: To extent official-capacity claims for damages were alleged, Eleventh Amendment bars them | Affirmed: District correctly dismissed any official-capacity damages claims as state-barred; it did not dismiss individual-capacity claims on Eleventh Amendment grounds |
| Whether claims against Morton survive statute of limitations / tolling due to grievance exhaustion | Pemberton: Exhaustion process (July 2012–March 2014) tolled the two-year § 1983 limitations period; grievance handling shows personal participation | District: § 1997e(a) does not toll limitations; Oklahoma tolling not shown; claim accrued Sept 2012 and suit filed Nov 2014 | Held: Claims against Morton are time-barred; § 1997e(a) does not itself toll limitations and plaintiff did not meet Oklahoma equitable-tolling standards |
| Whether complaints against Patton and Knutson adequately plead personal/supervisory liability (access-to-courts denial; denial of pens/materials) | Pemberton: Supervisory liability via statutory duties and failure to remedy grievances suffices to show personal involvement | District: Mere supervisory role or denial/return of grievances alone is insufficient; plaintiff must plead an "affirmative link" showing personal involvement, causation, and state of mind | Affirmed: Pleadings do not plausibly allege that Patton or Knutson promulgated/implemented policy or acquiesced with requisite causation/state of mind; dismissal with prejudice proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925 (10th Cir. 2008) (pro se filings construed liberally but pro se status does not excuse procedural compliance)
- Jones v. Frank, 973 F.2d 872 (10th Cir. 1992) (standard of review for Rule 4(m) dismissal is abuse of discretion)
- Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2003) (good cause may exist to excuse failure to serve where ifp plaintiff cooperated with Marshals)
- Johnson v. United States Postal Serv., 861 F.2d 1475 (10th Cir. 1988) (Marshal not culpable where plaintiff provided incorrect defendant information)
- Fields v. Oklahoma State Penitentiary, 511 F.3d 1109 (10th Cir. 2007) (Marshal not required to locate a defendant who moved without an accessible forwarding address)
- Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard; bare legal conclusions insufficient)
- Dodds v. Richardson, 614 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2010) (supervisor liability requires affirmative link—personal involvement, causation, and state of mind)
- Little v. Jones, 607 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir. 2010) (officials who render administrative remedies unavailable can excuse exhaustion)
- Roberts v. Barreras, 484 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2007) (state tolling rules apply to § 1983 claims; federal exhaustion statute does not itself toll limitations)
- Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 2009) (denial of grievance alone, without connection to underlying constitutional violation, does not establish personal participation)