Requena v. Roberts, 893 F.3d 1195

Background

Plaintiff Adrian M. Requena, a Kansas DOC inmate, filed a sprawling § 1983 second amended complaint naming 38 defendants and attaching 450+ pages of exhibits; district court screened and dismissed the complaint with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
The district court identified two principal claims for discussion (denial of hygiene supplies and denial of access to the courts) but dismissed the entire complaint; plaintiff moved to alter judgment and appealed.
On appeal the Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo, construed pro se pleadings liberally, considered attached exhibits, and evaluated whether amendment would be futile.
The court affirmed dismissal in all respects except it reversed as to Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims against Newkirk, Cranston, and Crotts for the June 30, 2012 beating, finding plausible allegations of known risk and failure to act.
Other claims were dismissed (and amendment deemed futile or barred): Eighth—hygiene (no alleged injury); First—denial of access (no nonfrivolous claim and collateral estoppel); Fourteenth—equal protection (not similarly situated/racial animus inadequately pled); First—retaliation (disciplinary conviction sustained and collateral estoppel); Due process—property and liberty claims (adequate post-deprivation remedies; no atypical, significant hardship); deliberate indifference/medical care (no causation from delay or sufficient harm alleged).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Eighth Amendment — denial of hygiene supplies	Requena: denial of soap/toothpaste/toothbrush for ~30 days amounted to cruel and unusual punishment causing rashes/scars	Defendants: restrictions in segregation and refunds meant no serious deprivation or injury	Dismissed for failure to state claim (no alleged injury); plaintiff waived post-judgment amendment request on appeal
First Amendment — denial of access to courts	Requena: inability to pay for photocopies from forced savings prevented him from pursuing appellate claim challenging disciplinary process	Defendants: underlying appellate claim was frivolous; no actual injury; prior state adjudication	Dismissed; claim frivolous and collateral estoppel applies
Fourteenth Amendment — equal protection	Requena: Lamb denied assistance to him but helped "black and white" inmates; racial animus	Defendants: alleged comparators not similarly situated; facts differ	Dismissed; allegations too vague and comparators not similarly situated; amendment futile
First Amendment — retaliation	Requena: McGehee filed false disciplinary report and harassed him after he filed grievances	Defendants: disciplinary conviction supported by evidence; verbal harassment/nutraloaf not adverse actions	Dismissed; retaliation fails because conviction sustained and remaining acts not constitutionally adverse; collateral estoppel
Eighth Amendment — failure to protect from assault	Requena: reported threats and requested transfer; defendants ignored risk leading to June 30 beating	Defendants: prison response adequate or lacked knowledge of specific risk	Reversed as to Newkirk, Cranston, and Crotts — plausible deliberate-indifference allegations; other defendants dismissed for lack of specific knowledge
Eighth Amendment — denial of medical care	Requena: delayed vision/hearing care and denied hearing aid after beating caused permanent harm	Defendants: delays did not cause substantial harm; disagreement over treatment is nonconstitutional	Dismissed; plaintiff failed to allege delay caused substantial harm or culpable state of mind
Fourteenth Amendment — property/liberty (due process)	Requena: seeks compensation for donated TV, lost legal brief, time in segregation after overturned infraction	Defendants: post-deprivation administrative remedies available and pursued; 30 days segregation not atypical	Dismissed; adequate post-deprivation remedies exhausted; no protected liberty interest for short segregation

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must plead facts plausibly showing entitlement to relief)
Young v. Davis, 554 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2009) (pleading standard and construction of pro se complaints)
Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2012) (plausibility standard—nudge claims from conceivable to plausible)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (prison officials must protect inmates from substantial risk of serious harm; subjective knowledge requirement)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment)
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (random, unauthorized deprivation by state employee requires only adequate post‑deprivation remedy)
Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985) (prison disciplinary decisions require "some evidence" to satisfy due process)
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (favorable termination rule for § 1983 claims that would imply invalidity of conviction)
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (protected liberty interest arises only for atypical, significant hardships)