Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Munn v. Ward, 10th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    Fred Munn, an inmate, filed a civil rights complaint against prison officials alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, denial of free exercise of religion under the First Amendment, and extension of his sentence without due process by denying him opportunities to earn good time credits. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding Munn's allegations were vague and conclusory. The appellate court affirmed, agreeing Munn failed to demonstrate deliberate indifference or state valid constitutional claims regarding the First Amendment, due process, or an alleged conspiracy. The dismissal was upheld.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-06-10 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-7062

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Fred Munn, an inmate, filed a civil rights complaint against prison officials alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, denial of free exercise of religion under the First Amendment, and extension of his sentence without due process by denying him opportunities to earn good time credits. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding Munn's allegations were vague and conclusory. The appellate court affirmed, agreeing Munn failed to demonstrate deliberate indifference or state valid constitutional claims regarding the First Amendment, due process, or an alleged conspiracy. The dismissal was upheld.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    6 views2 pages

    Munn v. Ward, 10th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Fred Munn, an inmate, filed a civil rights complaint against prison officials alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, denial of free exercise of religion under the First Amendment, and extension of his sentence without due process by denying him opportunities to earn good time credits. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding Munn's allegations were vague and conclusory. The appellate court affirmed, agreeing Munn failed to demonstrate deliberate indifference or state valid constitutional claims regarding the First Amendment, due process, or an alleged conspiracy. The dismissal was upheld.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    F I L E D

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    TENTH CIRCUIT

    JUN 10 1999

    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk

    FRED DEWITT MUNN, JR.,


    Plaintiff-Appellant,

    vs.

    RON WARD, WardenOklahoma


    State Penitentiary; FRED COOK, DUnit Manager of Protective Custody;
    ANDY ANDERSON, D-Unit Officer;
    F. HUMPHREY, D-Unit Officer;
    DIRK MCCARTY, D-Unit Officer; W.
    O. MOODY, D-Unit Officer,

    No. 98-7062
    (D.C. No. CV-97-104-S)
    (E.D. Okla.)

    Defendants-Appellees.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before ANDERSON, KELLY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges. **
    Plaintiff-Appellant Fred DeWitt Munn, Jr., an inmate appearing pro se,
    appeals from the district courts dismissal of his civil rights complaint brought
    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
    doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This 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.
    *

    After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge
    panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material
    assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th
    Cir. R. 34.1 (G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
    **

    pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. In his complaint, Mr. Munn alleged that


    Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, in violation of the
    Eighth Amendment, Defendants violated the First Amendment in denying him
    free exercise of religion, and Defendants extended his sentence in violation of due
    process by denying him the opportunity to earn two-for-one and three-for-one
    good time credits. In an amended complaint, Mr. Munn alleged that Defendants
    conspired to commit these violations and retaliated against him for filing a
    lawsuit. Finding these allegations to be vague and conclusory, the district court
    held that they did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation and dismissed
    the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e). Having reviewed the record, we
    agree that Mr. Munn failed to satisfy the subjective and objective prongs of
    deliberate indifference and thus failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim.
    See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). In addition, we affirm the
    district court's dismissal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B), of Mr. Munns
    First Amendment, due process, and conspiracy claims for substantially the reasons
    given by the court in its Order dated March 31, 1998.
    AFFIRMED.
    Entered for the Court
    Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
    Circuit Judge
    -2-

    You might also like