Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Gorton v. Williams, 10th Cir. (2009)
Gorton v. Williams, 10th Cir. (2009)
February 2, 2009
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSElisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
GLENN H. GORTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
No. 08-6196
(D.C. No. 07-CV-01165-F)
C/O WILLIAMS,
(W.D. Okla.)
Defendant-Appellee.
In this pro se state prisoner appeal, Plaintiff Glenn H. Gorton alleges the
district court erred by granting summary judgment to Defendant.
In his 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint before the district court, Plaintiff first
alleged Defendant used inappropriate physical force. He claimed Defendant
squeezed his upper left arm, causing pain, while he escorted Plaintiff to the
medical unit. Plaintiff also alleged Defendant sexually harassed him by making
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
After examining the briefs and the 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). Therefore, this case
is ordered submitted without oral argument.
genuine factual dispute for summary judgment purposes. See Serna v. Colo.
Dept of Corr., 455 F.3d 1146, 1151 (10th Cir. 2006); Lawmaster v. Ward, 125
F.3d 1341, 1349 (10th Cir. 1997). Similarly, the letters of concern Plaintiff sent
to various unrelated government agencies also do not create a dispute as to
exhaustion. In short, in light of Defendants evidence that Plaintiff submitted no
grievances related to his claims in this case, the courts grant of summary
judgment to Defendant for failure to exhaust was appropriate.
Plaintiff largely confines his challenge on appeal to the courts grant of
summary judgment to Defendant but also makes brief mention of the denial of his
motions regarding legal materials. To the extent that Plaintiff challenges the
disposition of these motions, his challenge fails. The district court concluded the
issues raised in the motions (and individuals named in them) were unrelated to
Plaintiffs claims of harassment and abuse in this case. The court did not err by
dismissing the motions. Indeed, Plaintiff has another appeal pending before this
court, Gorton v. Miller, No. 08-6160, addressing these issues of legal services and
materials at Lawton.
Finally, in his opening brief, Plaintiff claims he has been prevented by
Lawton staff from pursuing charges against Defendant for his conduct. However,
in his reply, Plaintiff essentially concedes that this concern does not relate to the
merits of his original 1983 claim. He indicates an intent to file a new case to
address the alleged mishandling of his grievances.
-4-
For substantially the same reasons discussed by the magistrate judge and
adopted by the district court, we AFFIRM the district courts grant of summary
judgment to Defendant. Further, we GRANT Plaintiffs motion to proceed
without prepayment of fees and remind him of his continuing obligation to make
partial payments until the filing fee has been paid in full. All other pending
motions are DENIED.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-5-