Turner v. Falk, 112715 FED10, 15-1010
|Opinion Judge:||NANCY L. MORITZ CIRCUIT JUDGE.|
|Party Name:||GARY WAYNE TURNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FRANCES FALK, Warden; ROBERT BUTCHER, Major; JACKSON, Lieutenant; INFANTE, Lieutenant, Defendants-Appellees.|
|Judge Panel:||Before KELLY, BACHARACH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||November 27, 2015|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit|
D.C. No. 1:13-CV-02957-PAB-MJW (D. Colo.)
ORDER AND JUDGMENT[*]
Gary Wayne Turner is a Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC) inmate. Proceeding pro se, he sued several prison employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing they retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment right to free speech. The district court dismissed Turner's claims for various reasons. Turner now appeals and we affirm.
Turner had the opportunity to take a college-level "customer services" course in prison. As part of the course, the instructor directed her students to write an essay applying "the Eight Steps of Conflict Partnership" discussed in class. R. at 24. Turner's instructor previously had warned the class against making inappropriate comments, and she provided detailed instructions for completing the assignment, including examples of appropriate essay subjects. Nevertheless, Turner submitted an essay titled "Domestic Violence – The Myth, " in which he expressed a desire to "slap the shit out of" and have anal sex with a woman. R. at 24-25. As a result, Turner was no longer allowed to participate in the course and he was disciplined for violating the prison's rule prohibiting sexual harassment.
Turner subsequently sued his instructor1 and other prison employees alleging First Amendment retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed Turner's claims against his instructor for untimely service. The remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing Turner's amended complaint failed to state a viable claim for relief, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), and also arguing they were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court granted the motion and dismissed Turner's remaining claims.
On appeal, Turner argues the district court erred in dismissing his claims against his instructor and in granting the remaining defendants' motion to dismiss. We lack jurisdiction to address Turner's first argument and reject his second.
II. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review
Our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing orders designated in the notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP