Jennings v. Everett

Tenth Circuit

Jennings v. Everett

45 F. App'x 868

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 13, 2002

Docket02-8007

StatusUnpublished

This text of 45 F. App'x 868 (Jennings v. Everett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jennings v. Everett, 45 F. App'x 868 (10th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

BALDOCK, Circuit Judge.

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. RApp. P.'34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Proceeding pro se, Tomi Edward Jennings appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Mr. Jennings, a prisoner at the Wyoming State Penitentiary, alleges that *869 the defendant prison officials unlawfully restricted his access to certain legal materials, thereby frustrating his ability to prosecute his direct criminal appeal and pursue other post-conviction remedies. He claims that the defendants’ actions deprived him of his right to represent himself, violating the rule announced in Faret-ta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). He further claims that the limits placed on his access to the prison’s law library constituted a due process violation under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

The district court ruled that Mr. Jennings failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). It also concluded that even if he did exhaust his administrative remedies, he is barred from seeking money damages by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). And in any event, said the district court, Mr. Jennings has failed to raise an issue of material fact on the merits of his constitutional claims.

Having reviewed the record, the parties’ briefs, as well as the relevant law, this court concludes that the district court’s decision was correct. We reach that conclusion for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s order dated January 14, 2002.

The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming is AFFIRMED. Mr. Jennings’s motion to amend the complaint is DENIED.

*

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

BALDOCK, Circuit Judge.

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. RApp. P.'34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Proceeding pro se, Tomi Edward Jennings appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Mr. Jennings, a prisoner at the Wyoming State Penitentiary, alleges that *869 the defendant prison officials unlawfully restricted his access to certain legal materials, thereby frustrating his ability to prosecute his direct criminal appeal and pursue other post-conviction remedies. He claims that the defendants’ actions deprived him of his right to represent himself, violating the rule announced in Faret-ta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). He further claims that the limits placed on his access to the prison’s law library constituted a due process violation under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

The district court ruled that Mr. Jennings failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). It also concluded that even if he did exhaust his administrative remedies, he is barred from seeking money damages by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). And in any event, said the district court, Mr. Jennings has failed to raise an issue of material fact on the merits of his constitutional claims.

Having reviewed the record, the parties’ briefs, as well as the relevant law, this court concludes that the district court’s decision was correct. We reach that conclusion for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s order dated January 14, 2002.

The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming is AFFIRMED. Mr. Jennings’s motion to amend the complaint is DENIED.

*

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 F. App'x 868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jennings-v-everett-ca10-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack