Ewing v. Wyandotte County Detention Center
| Decision Date | 29 November 1993 |
| Citation | 25 F.3d 1056 |
| Parties | NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Before BRORBY and EBEL, Circuit Judges, and KANE, ** District Judge. Judge.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of these appeals. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff Donald E. Ewing filed separate civil rights complaints under 42 U.S.C.1983 against the City of Kansas City, Kansas, the Kansas City Police Department, Wyandotte County, Kansas, and Johnson County Adult Detention Center of Kansas. The district court dismissed all of plaintiff's complaints under 28 U.S.C.1915(d) before service of process. We consolidate these appeals on our own motion, Fed. R.App. P. 3(b), and affirm.
We review a district court's dismissal of a complaint as frivolous under 1915(d) for abuse of discretion. Denton v. Hernandez, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1734 (1992). "A pro se litigant's pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.1991)(citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)).
In this case, plaintiff claims that while incarcerated in Wyandotte County Detention Center he was denied adequate heat during periods of time in 1990, 1992, and 1993. The district court dismissed plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 1915(d) as lacking in sufficient information to warrant further proceedings. In addition, the court noted that plaintiff's complaints regarding the conditions of his confinement were adequately covered by the class action (Woodson v. Sully, Case No. 85-3049-S) brought by all inmates at the detention center and judicially supervised during the 1990 to 1993 period of time. See Woodson v. Sully, 801 F.Supp. 466 (D. Kan.1992); see also McNeil v. Guthrie, 945 F.2d 1163, 1165 (10th Cir.1991)( that individual suits for injunctive and equitable relief from alleged unconstitutional conditions of confinement cannot be maintained where a class action exists).
The court has the "power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). An in forma pauperis action also may be dismissed under 1915(d) if the claims therein are "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory." Id. We have read plaintiff's brief and the record, and we conclude that the district court's dismissal pursuant to 1915(d) was proper.
In this case, plaintiff claims misconduct by the Kansas City, Kansas police department. The district court dismissed plaintiff's claims as without factual or legal support. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.
The court can dismiss a complaint as frivolous under 1915(d) "if plaintiff cannot make a rational argument on the law and facts in support of his claim." LaFevers v. Saffle, 936 F.2d 1117, 1118 (10th Cir.1991). Even construing plaintiff's complaint liberally, see Haines, 404 U.S. at 520-21, it contains no more than conclusory, unsupported allegations. Wise v. Bravo, 666 F.2d 1328, 1333 (10th Cir.1981).
Accordingly, we hold that the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims under 1915(d) was appropriate.
In this case, plaintiff again seeks damages for conditions of confinement and alleged events which occurred while he was incarcerated at Wyandotte County Detention Center. Although the district court did not specifically state that the dismissal was pursuant to 1915(d), because "plaintiff cannot make a rational argument on the law and facts in support of his claim," LaFevers, 936 F.2d at 1118, and because of the district court's decision in case No. 93-3052, we conclude that it was the intent of the district court to rely on 1915(d).
As discussed above, even in the event it could be found that plaintiff's claims were not factually frivolous and legally insufficient, his allegations were adequately represented in the class action brought by the inmates of the detention center, which was still under judicial supervision at the time plaintiff claims these events occurred. See generally Woodson, 801...
To continue reading
Request your trial