Muhammad vs. Collins, No. 07-1010 (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 July 17, 2007 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court ELI-JA H H A KEEM M U H A MM AD, a.k.a CH RISTOPHER M ITCH ELL, No. 07-1010 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. District of Colorado M . COLLINS, V. SUDLOW and R. M A D ISO N , (D.C. No. 06-CV-00756-ZLW ) Defendants-Appellees. OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT * Before BR ISC OE, M cKA Y, and M cCO NNELL, Circuit Judges. Plaintiff C. Eli-jah Hakeem M uhammad, a.k.a. Christopher M itchell, is currently incarcerated at ADX Florence. On April 11, 2006 M r. M itchell submitted a pro se Prisoner Complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10 th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is therefore 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10 th Cir. R. 32.1. Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The complaint, as amended, asserted twelve claims for relief, consisting of retaliation, conspiracy, and denial of access to the courts. The district court dismissed all twelve claims as frivolous. W e agree that these claims fail to assert a constitutional violation and affirm the dismissal. W e also deny leave to proceed in form a pauperis. An action is frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B) if the claim [is] based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or if it is founded on clearly baseless factual contentions. Schlicher v. Thom as, 111 F.3d 777, 779 (10th Cir. 1997) (internal quotations omitted). W e review a district court s dismissal for frivolousness under § 1915(e)(2)(B) for abuse of discretion. Conkle v. Potter, 352 F.3d 1333, 1335 n.4 (10th Cir. 2003). In doing so, we accept M r. M itchell s allegations as true and consider all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to him. Perkins v. Kansas Dep t of Corr., 165 F.3d 803, 806 (10th Cir. 1999). Additionally, we construe M r. M itchell s complaint liberally because he is proceeding pro se. Id. Claims One, Five, Seven, Eight, Nine, and Ten of M r. M itchell s appeal assert a denial of access to the courts because M r. M itchell was not given carbon paper or access to photocopying equipment free of cost in connection with his litigation. Photocopy access is not an independent constitutional right, but exists only where necessary to the prisoner s right to seek legal redress. See Carper v. -2- DeLand, 53 F.3d 613, 616-17 (10th Cir. 1995) ( a state has no affirmative constitutional obligation to assist inmates in general civil matters ); Jones v. Franzen, 697 F.2d 801, 803 (7th Cir. 1983) ( [T]he right to Xerox exists for the purpose of filing court documents w here duplication is required). M r. M itchell has refused to provide evidence of any meaningful legal need for copies or carbon paper. Without a showing of need for copies or a resulting harm, these claims are without merit. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996). In Claim Two, M r. M itchell asserts that M r. M adison, a prison official, deliberately destroyed his BP-8 complaint form regarding his missing property. However, because M r. M itchell was untimely in the filing of his grievance, the district court held that Claim Two is procedurally barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Appellant offers no argument why that conclusion is erroneous. In Claim Three, M r. M itchell alleges in general terms that he was denied access to the Unit Satellite Law Library. M r. M itchell fails to allege that he was actually impeded in his access to the courts in any specific case, or that being blocked from using the library resulted in actual harm, as is required to set forth a claim of a constitutional violation. See Casey, 518 U.S. at 349. M r. M itchell asserts in Claim Four that he was denied access to a paralegal prisoner, resulting in a denial of access to sufficient legal facilities. The record shows, however, that M r. M itchell was not denied access to all paralegal -3- prisoners, but only to one specific paralegal. R., Doc. 3-2, at 33; see R., Doc. 142 at 9-14. There is no assertion that this precluded M r. M itchell from pursuing his legal claims. In Claims Five, Six, and Tw elve, M r. M itchell asserts that he was denied access to the courts when prison officials refused to provide postage stamps free of charge. This Court has held that inmates do not have an unlimited right to free postage. . . . Harrell v. Keohane, 621 F.2d 1059, 1061 (10th Cir. 1980). Because the record shows that M r. M itchell had sufficient funds in his prison account to pay for stamps, R., Doc. 14-3, at 22, prison officials were not required to provide them for free. In Claim Eleven M r. M itchell states that prison official M adison confiscated legal materials, but he does not state what these legal materials may be or how the alleged confiscations affected his access to courts. The district court was therefore correct to dismiss this claim. Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado is AFFIRM ED. Appellant s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED, and we remind M r. M itchell of his responsibility to pay the -4- appellate filing fee in full. Appellant s Application for W rit of M andamus is DENIED. Entered for the Court, M ichael W . M cConnell Circuit Judge -5-

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.