Requena v. Roberts

Summary

The Tenth Circuit reviewed the dismissal with prejudice of a pro se inmate's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging constitutional violations involving hygiene supplies, access to the courts, equal protection, retaliation, and deprivation of property. The court affirmed dismissal, concluding that the pleaded facts failed to state viable claims and that amendment would be futile, including because certain claims were barred by collateral estoppel or lacked required allegations of injury, discriminatory intent, or inadequate postdeprivation remedies.

Holdings

1. A district court may dismiss a pro se complaint with prejudice when the record and the plaintiff's allegations establish that amendment would be futile, even if the court did not expressly use the word futile.
2. A prisoner cannot state an Eighth Amendment claim for denial of hygiene items without alleging a corresponding injury or substantial risk of serious harm.
3. A prisoner asserting denial of access to the courts must show actual injury to a nonfrivolous legal claim; a claim that had no chance of success cannot support an access-to-courts violation.
4. A race-based equal protection claim requires allegations that the plaintiff was treated differently from similarly situated persons and that the defendants acted with racial animus; vague and conclusory allegations are insufficient.
5. A prisoner cannot maintain a retaliation claim based on a disciplinary report when he was convicted of the underlying behavioral violation and evidence supports the conviction.
6. Requena plausibly stated an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Newkirk, Cranston, and Crotts concerning the June 30, 2012 beating, but not against Graves or Dusseau concerning the July 31 beating.
7. A delay in medical care violates the Eighth Amendment only when it results in substantial harm, such as lifelong handicap, permanent loss, or considerable pain; disagreement with medical judgment and mere negligence are insufficient.
8. Thirty days of disciplinary segregation and restrictions on property possession, without allegations of extreme conditions or an atypical and significant hardship, do not create a protected liberty interest under the Due Process Clause.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to state claims under Rule 8 and the plausibility standard.
2. Whether dismissal with prejudice was proper without expressly determining that amendment would be futile.
3. Whether Requena plausibly stated an Eighth Amendment claim that Newkirk, Cranston, and Crotts failed to protect him from the June 30, 2012 beating.
4. Whether Requena stated viable claims concerning denial of hygiene supplies, denial of access to the courts, equal protection, First Amendment retaliation, property deprivation, medical care, or a liberty interest in avoiding disciplinary segregation and restrictions.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded