Sammy Alvarez v. Aristedes Zavaras, Donice Neal, Thomas Cooper, Cheryl Smith, Mr. Bray, Miss Ganz, and Mr. Pierson.
Docket: 94-1571
Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; June 30, 1995; Federal Appellate Court
Unpublished opinions may now be cited if they hold persuasive value on a material issue, provided a copy is attached to the citing document or copies are supplied to the court and parties during oral argument. This ruling follows the General Order of November 29, 1993, which temporarily suspended certain citation rules.
In the case of Sammy Alvarez v. Aristedes Zavaras et al., the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed a district court's summary judgment favoring prison officials against Alvarez, a prisoner at the Colorado State Penitentiary. Alvarez claimed violations of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights due to his transfer without a hearing, denial of access to courts, and Eighth Amendment rights regarding living conditions and medical care. The district court's summary judgment was challenged by Alvarez, who also argued that he was denied the opportunity for discovery.
The appellate court conducted a de novo review of the summary judgment, adhering to the standard that summary judgment is proper when there are no genuine disputes over material facts. Upon review, the court found that the district court correctly granted summary judgment on the due process claim, citing precedent that prison officials are not required to provide a hearing for prisoner transfers. The court noted that a prisoner's inability to choose a facility does not constitute a violation of due process, and Alvarez did not identify any state laws or regulations that would necessitate a pre-transfer hearing.
Mr. Alvarez's claims about access to the courts were evaluated based on an affidavit from the defendants detailing the legal access program at the Colorado State Penitentiary, which includes a full-time legal assistant, law books, a contract attorney, and photocopy services. Inmates can request assistance and are typically seen within two to three days. Mr. Alvarez did not dispute these claims in his affidavit but raised several objections, including lack of access to request forms, failure to receive legal materials, and no interaction with the legal assistant or access attorney.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ensures state prisoners have "adequate, effective, and meaningful" access to the courts, which can be fulfilled through law libraries or trained legal assistance. However, prisoners do not have an absolute right to specific types of legal help, allowing states flexibility in how they meet this obligation. The district court found that the affidavit-supported legal assistance program met constitutional standards, referencing similar rulings in related cases. Furthermore, the court did not consider additional statements from Mr. Alvarez's objections as they lacked evidentiary support and were not included in his initial affidavit. Consequently, the district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendants concerning Mr. Alvarez's access to courts claim was upheld.
Mr. Alvarez's Eighth Amendment claims lack merit, as he argues that the restrictive conditions at the Colorado State Penitentiary amount to cruel and unusual punishment. He cites various restrictions, including limitations on smoking, outdoor time, social interactions, personal property, canteen purchases, and contact visits. However, the court agrees with the district court's assessment that these conditions do not violate the Eighth Amendment, which requires proof of unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain or grossly disproportionate punishment. Additionally, Mr. Alvarez's complaints regarding inadequate dental and medical care, including treatment delays and alleged negligence, also fail to meet Eighth Amendment standards, as the necessary level of deliberate indifference and substantial harm was not established.
Regarding his Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, Mr. Alvarez's loss of prison employment upon transfer does not constitute a violation, as prisoners lack a property interest in employment absent specific statutes or regulations, which he has not identified. Furthermore, the court found no grounds for reversing the summary judgment due to Mr. Alvarez's failure to request additional discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). Since he did not pursue this option in his responses, the district court acted within its discretion in granting summary judgment. The court affirmed the district court's order, noting that its ruling is not binding precedent except under specific legal doctrines, and also granted Mr. Alvarez an extension of time to file his reply brief. Lastly, even considering Mr. Alvarez's objections regarding legal access claims, the statements made were deemed insufficient to create material factual disputes, as they lacked specificity about the requested materials or efforts made to obtain legal assistance.
