David S. Peterson v. Rita Vargas, Also Known as Rita Pino-Vargas
Docket: 93-2143
Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; February 21, 1994; Federal Appellate Court
Unpublished opinions may be cited for their persuasive value on material issues, provided a copy is attached to the citing document or furnished to the Court and all parties during oral arguments. In the case of David S. Peterson v. Rita Vargas, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed Peterson's pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a denial of access to court due to Vargas allegedly destroying a legal document he had submitted for copying. The district court granted summary judgment to Vargas, concluding Peterson did not demonstrate that his access to the court was denied or that Vargas acted maliciously. On appeal, Peterson argued that the district court overlooked disputed facts regarding Vargas’s alleged deliberate indifference and his claimed prejudice. He contended that Vargas’s actions were not justified by prison policy. The appellate court conducted a de novo review of the summary judgment, emphasizing that while prison officials cannot impede a prisoner’s access to the courts, a prisoner must show actual prejudice from such interference. Peterson’s own affidavit revealed he was aware he could file objections to a class action settlement by August 21, 1991, and had prepared these objections by late June. He sought photocopying assistance from Vargas but did not follow prison policy that required payment for such services. By mid-July, he discovered the document was missing but made no attempt to recreate his objections before the deadline. The court concluded that the evidence only suggested a delay in access rather than actual prejudice, affirming the district court's finding that access was available but not utilized due to Peterson's noncompliance with prison policies. The judgment from the District Court for the District of New Mexico was affirmed, and the order and judgment are not binding precedent, except under specific legal doctrines.