Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Martel WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C/O Elizabeth STEPHENSON; Capt. Clifford Gulliford, #10334, Defendants-Appellees, Lt. Elizabeth Wood, #13057; 4 Unnamed Unknown Correctional Officers at Buena Vista Correctional Facility, Defendants.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT **
Plaintiff-Appellant Martel White, a state inmate appearing pro se, appeals from the district court's dismissal of his civil rights action seeking damages. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; White v. Stephenson, No. 19-cv-00875, 2020 WL 2832380 (D. Colo. June 1, 2020), adopting in part 2020 WL 4511179 (Mar. 24, 2020). Mr. White's amended complaint alleged (1) cruel and unusual punishment based a failure to prevent an attack on him by rival gang members, (2) violations of the Fourteenth Amendment based on defendants’ failure to initiate and follow the established procedure for placing him in protective custody, and (3) excessive force in defendants returning Mr. White to general population and in the use of pepper spray in breaking up a fight in which Mr. White was the victim. Defendants moved to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment.
The district court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims and the action with prejudice. The district court determined that Mr. White's official capacity claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity and that the John Doe defendants were properly dismissed for want of specific facts demonstrating excessive force. As for the remaining claims, the district court granted the named defendants qualified immunity on the grounds that the law was not clearly established.
On appeal, Mr. White raises some twenty-three issues in his brief. He objects to various procedural steps in the course of the lawsuit, takes issue with the district court's statement of various facts, and contests whether the district court got it right that the law was not clearly established. He argues that he has shown constitutional violations given clearly established law, some of which should be obvious without citations to specific cases. We have reviewed these issues raised and affirm the district court for substantially the same reasons it relied upon.
AFFIRMED. We grant Mr. White's motion to proceed IFP and remind him that he is obligated to continue making partial payments until the entire fee has been paid.
Paul J. Kelly, Jr., Circuit Judge
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 20-1229
Decided: January 07, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)