545 F. App'x 744
10th Cir.2013Background
- Sherratt, a Utah state prisoner, sued UDOC officials and Utah AG under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, alleging six rights violations and 23 retaliation theories, plus a challenge to Utah’s indeterminate sentencing.
- The district court dismissed supervisory-defendant claims, claims lacking standing, and time-barred or non-constitutional claims, and declined to address the indeterminate sentencing challenge.
- On appeal, Sherratt argues retaliation for grievances and threats to sue, conspiracy to deny access to courts, denial of legal assistance to others, SOTP participation denial, and unconstitutionality of indeterminate sentencing; he raises new theories.
- The panel reviews de novo under 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) with Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard, liberal pro se construction, and no addition of new facts.
- The court affirms the district court’s dismissal of all presented claims and denies oral argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retaliation for grievances and threats to sue | Sherratt alleges retaliatory actions by officials. | Retaliation requires specific, proximate motive; mere conclusory allegations insufficient. | Claims dismissed for lack of causal specificity. |
| Access to courts / providing legal assistance to inmates | Officials obstruct his ability to assist others, impairing access to courts. | No constitutional right to assist others; impact on access unclear. | Affirmed dismissal; no right to provide legal representation to inmates. |
| Participation in SOTP and due process | Denial of SOTP participation violated liberty interests and lengthened sentence. | SOTP is a privilege; no due-process right to participate or to shorten sentence. | Affirmed; denial did not implicate a protected liberty or due process right. |
| Constitutionality of Utah's indeterminate sentencing scheme | Indeterminate sentencing is unconstitutional. | Scheme has withstood constitutional scrutiny. | Affirmed; scheme upheld. |
| New theories raised on appeal / Heck bar | New claims about false evidence, equal protection, and ineffective assistance. | New issues barred or would imply invalidating conviction. | Dismissed as barred by Heck v. Humphrey. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2006) (retaliation requires a causal link to protected activity)
- Maschner v. Smith, 899 F.2d 940 (10th Cir. 1990) (personal participation; no grievance denial automatic liability)
- Green v. Johnson, 977 F.2d 1383 (10th Cir. 1992) (legal materials restriction is permissible for security reasons)
- Templeman v. Gunter, 16 F.3d 367 (10th Cir. 1994) (no constitutional right to process beyond state-created rights)
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1979) (no liberty interest in parole absent entitlement)
- Fratus v. DeLand, 49 F.3d 673 (10th Cir. 1995) (four-year residual statute of limitations applies to some § 1983 claims)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1994) (claims implying invalidity of conviction barred on success of § 1983 claim)