Umoren v. Byrd
670 F. App'x 650
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Pro se state inmate John Umoren sued Cimarron Correctional Facility staff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging they allowed and prompted murders of gang members and restricted his law-library access to conceal misconduct.
- Umoren sought removal/termination of the defendants from supervisory positions and institutional reforms (gang policy and law-library access).
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissal under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c) for failure to state a claim; the district court adopted the recommendation over Umoren’s objection and dismissed the case without granting leave to amend.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and considered whether the complaint alleged facts showing a plausible, concrete, individualized injury required to pursue the claims.
- The court concluded Umoren’s claims lacked the required actual and concrete injury (citing the access-to-courts/standing principles) and affirmed dismissal; it denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, found the appeal frivolous, imposed a filing-fee obligation, and assessed a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of sua sponte dismissal under § 1997e(c) | Umoren argued district court abused discretion by dismissing sua sponte and without leave to amend | Court may dismiss prison-condition suits at any time if they fail to state a claim under § 1997e(c) | Dismissal was authorized; no abuse of discretion |
| Failure to state a claim (plausibility) | Allegations that staff allowed murders and restricted law library support § 1983 claims | Complaint lacked factual content showing defendants were liable for misconduct | Claims lacked plausibility and were dismissed |
| Injury/standing for law-library and related claims | Umoren contended restrictions were part of cover-up and harmed him | Court required an actual, concrete, individualized injury (Lewis standard) which was not alleged | No concrete injury shown; claims fail |
| Leave to amend and appellate IFP/strike | Umoren sought reconsideration and to proceed IFP | Court found objections heard, no viable amendment, appeal frivolous; IFP denied; strike under § 1915(g) | Leave to amend denied; IFP denied; appeal frivolous; strike imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (an action is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (complaint must contain factual content suggesting plausibility of liability)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (access-to-courts claims require actual, concrete injury specific to the plaintiff)
- Swoboda v. Dubach, 992 F.2d 286 (10th Cir. 1993) (standing/injury principles in prisoner-law-library claims)
- Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273 (5th Cir. 1998) (standard of de novo review cited for magistrate recommendation review)