Parkhurst vs. Pittsburgh Paints, No. 06-8047 (10th Cir. 2007)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS January 24, 2007 FO R TH E TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court DERRICK R. PARK HU RST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PITTSB UR GH PA IN TS IN C; JUDY UPH OFF, Director, W yoming Department of Corrections; M ALVIN COLE; SCOTT ABBOTT, W arden, W yoming Department of Corrections State; JO H N CO Y LE; B RU CE A. D A N IELS; R OB ER T E. O RTEGA, Director, W yoming Department of Corrections in their official capacities; JAM ES DAV IS; M . R. ENG ELSJGER D; JAM ES FERGUSON; W ILLIAM HETTGAR; R OBER T LA M PER T; JO H N PEERY; M ICHAEL ROSS; GARY STARBUCK; VANCE EVERETT; and John Does 1-20, No. 06-8047 (D.C. No. 05-CV-135-CAB) (D . W yo.) Defendants-Appellees. OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT * * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent w ith Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Before PO RFILIO, B AL DOC K , and EBEL, Circuit Judges. Plaintiff-appellant Derrick R. Parkhurst, a prisoner at the W yoming State Penitentiary Complex (Penitentiary), appeals from the district court s grant of summary judgment on (1) his diversity product-liability claim against defendant-appellee Pittsburgh Paints, Inc., and (2) his federal law claims against the remaining defendants-appellees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). The district court granted summary judgment to all defendants. The court held that the product-liability claim against Pittsburgh Paints and the § 1983 claims against the remaining defendants-appellees (State Defendants) were barred by the applicable W yoming statutes of limitation. The court further held that the RICO claim against the State Defendants failed because (1) the only remedy provided for a RICO violation was for injury to business or property and M r. Parkhurst had only claimed personal injury, and (2) the RICO claim was time-barred. On appeal, M r. Parkhurst claims that the district court erred in (1) granting summary judgment on the ground that his product liability and § 1983 claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitation, and (2) denying his motion to have counsel appointed. -2- DISCUSSION W e review the district court s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal standard used by the district court. Simms v. Okla. ex rel. Dep t of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Servs., 165 F.3d 1321, 1326 (10th Cir. 1999). Summary judgment should be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answ ers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). W hen applying this standard, we view the evidence and draw reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Sim m s, 165 F.3d at 1326. There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil case. Durre v. Dempsey, 869 F.2d 543, 547 (10th Cir. 1989). As recognized by the district court, however, it had the power to request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The burden is upon the applicant to convince the court that there is sufficient merit to his claim to warrant the appointment of counsel. M cCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836, 838 (10th Cir. 1985). This decision is left to the sound discretion of the district court and will not be overturned unless it would result in fundamental unfairness impinging on due process rights. W illiams v. M eese, 926 F.2d 994, 996 (10th Cir. 1991). -3- Following review of the parties materials and the record on appeal, and keeping the above standards of review foremost in mind, we affirm the district court s grant of summary judgment to defendants-appellees for substantially the reasons stated in the thorough and well-reasoned order filed by the district court judge on M ay 17, 2006. Similarly, we affirm the district court s denials of M r. Parkhurst s numerous motions seeking appointment of counsel for substantially the reasons set forth in those denials. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRM ED. M r. Parkhurst s motion to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs and fees is GRANTED, and he is reminded that he remains obligated to make partial payments until the entire fee has been paid. Entered for the Court John C. Porfilio Circuit Judge -4-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.