Michael A. Wooten v. Calvin Hayden

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
MICHAEL A. WOOTEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CALVIN HAYDEN; WAYNE RECTOR;
WAYNE BAKER; DALE REED; (FNU)
HOSTETLER; JOSEPH MAZZEI; (FNU)
BERG; (FNU) PREW; (FNU) (LNU) (1);
JASON COVINGTON; KELLY RYAN,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 21-3065
(D.C. No. 5:18-CV-03067-SAC)
(D. Kan.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before HARTZ, McHUGH, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Michael A. Wooten appeals pro se from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action challenging his pretrial detention in solitary confinement. Exercising
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
* 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); 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 This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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 with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
December 2, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 21-3065 Document: 010110613247 Date Filed: 12/02/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 7 --

2
I
Wooten is a pretrial detainee at the Johnson County Adult Detention Center
(JCADC), where he has been held on state charges since 2017. The district court
summarized the factual background as follows:
Plaintiff is charged with aggravated indecent liberties and sexual
exploitation of a child. He was taken into custody in October 2017 and
was ordered to have no contact with the juvenile victim. However, he
repeatedly contacted the victim by telephone from the jail; in a state
court proceeding, the State described the contents of the calls as
including extensive witness intimidation [by which] the defendant
discussed with and suggested to the juvenile victim that she commit
suicide. The jail became aware of these calls and took steps to block the
victim’s phone number. Despite this, the plaintiff was able to contact
the victim using different telephone numbers that were not programmed
into the jail telephone system.
In December 2017, the state district court ordered that plaintiff be
prohibited from using the telephone in the JCADC. The jail responded
by placing plaintiff in a solitary confinement cell with release for three
hours daily.
R. at 305 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 1
In his second amended complaint, which is the operative complaint, Wooten
claimed his due process rights were violated because a sheriff at JCADC, Calvin
Hayden, and a state court judge, Kelly Ryan, “made the decision to punish [him] by
[placing him in] solitary confinement,” R. at 296. He also alleged he had been held
1 Recognizing Wooten’s pro se status and the liberal pleading standard, the
district court gleaned these facts in part from supplemental materials Wooten filed
with the district court. Wooten does not object either to the district court’s reference
to his supplemental materials or its recitation of the facts.
Appellate Case: 21-3065 Document: 010110613247 Date Filed: 12/02/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 7 --

3
in solitary confinement for two-and-a-half years with no finding of guilt, and he
sought $15 million in compensatory damages. 2
On screening, the district court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The court determined that Wooten failed to state a due
process violation because his placement in solitary confinement was not punishment
but a restriction reasonably related to the jail’s legitimate interest in preventing him
from contacting the victim. The court further determined that Wooten asserted a
speedy-trial claim, which must be brought in state court or in a federal habeas
petition. Finally, the court concluded that Wooten’s claim for compensatory
damages was barred by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e).
II
We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under § 1915A(b)(1) for
failure to state a claim. See Young v. Davis, 554 F.3d 1254, 1256 (10th Cir. 2009).
“A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain ‘a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Ghailani v. Sessions,
859 F.3d 1295, 1303 (10th Cir. 2017) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).
“[T]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
conclusory statements” are not enough. Id. at 1304 (internal quotation marks
omitted). The complaint must “include[] enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
2 Wooten also named as defendants “Sgt. Hostetler plus 6 remaining on
additional sheet.” R. at 295. He did not, however, explain how they participated in
any wrongdoing. We constrain our analysis accordingly.
Appellate Case: 21-3065 Document: 010110613247 Date Filed: 12/02/2021 Page: 3

-- 3 of 7 --

4
plausible on its face.” Young, 554 F.3d at 1256 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Although we afford pro se pleadings a liberal construction, we do not advocate for
pro se parties, who are obligated to follow the same rules of procedure that govern
other litigants. See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840
(10th Cir. 2005).
On appeal, Wooten repeats many of the same allegations that the district court
found deficient, but he does not directly address the district court’s reasons for
dismissing his claims. His failure to do so waives appellate review of the district
court’s rulings. See Nixon v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 784 F.3d 1364, 1369 (10th Cir.
2015) (affirming dismissal where appellant failed to challenge the district court’s
grounds for dismissal). 3
Even so, we perceive no error in the district court’s analysis. Wooten insists
his placement in solitary confinement violated his due process rights as a pretrial
detainee, but the district court correctly explained there was no due process violation
so long as the restriction was not punishment. Indeed, “[a]bsent a showing of an
expressed intent to punish on the part of detention facility officials, th[e]
3 Wooten’s opening brief makes several undeveloped statements that have no
apparent relationship either to his claims or to the grounds for the district court’s
dismissal. See, e.g., Aplt. Br. at 4 (“Inadequate counsel . . . Incorrect evidentiary
ruling, Prosecutorial misconduct all resulting from Isolation.”); id. (“Inadequate legal
representation can have major consequences for a criminal proceeding . . . .”); id.
(“Biased or lost evidence by judge[.]”). We do not consider these comments because
“scattered statements” made in the context of other issues “fail to frame and develop
an issue sufficient to invoke appellate review.” Murrell v. Shalala, 43 F.3d 1388,
1389 n.2 (10th Cir. 1994).
Appellate Case: 21-3065 Document: 010110613247 Date Filed: 12/02/2021 Page: 4

-- 4 of 7 --

5
determination [of whether a restriction constitutes punishment] generally will turn on
whether an alternative purpose to which the restriction may rationally be connected is
assignable for it, and whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative
purpose assigned to it.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 538 (1979) (brackets and
internal quotation marks omitted). “[I]f a restriction or condition is not reasonably
related to a legitimate goal—if it is arbitrary or purposeless—a court permissibly may
infer that the purpose of the governmental action is punishment.” Id. at 539. But
“the effective management of the detention facility once the individual is confined is
a valid objective that may justify imposition of conditions and restrictions of pretrial
detention and dispel any inference that such restrictions are intended as punishment.”
Id. at 540.
Wooten’s placement in solitary confinement was not punishment. It was a
facility management tool implemented by JCADC to effectuate the state court’s order
prohibiting Wooten from contacting the victim. JCADC officials attempted
alternative, less restrictive measures, including blocking the victim’s phone number,
but Wooten circumvented those measures and persisted in calling the victim. This
more restrictive measure was reasonably related to JCADC’s legitimate interest in
managing the facility in a way that prevented Wooten from contacting the victim in
contravention of the state court’s order. See id. (recognizing that restrictions
reasonably related to a detention facility’s legitimate management goals are not
punishment); Peoples v. CCA Det. Ctrs., 422 F.3d 1090, 1106 (10th Cir. 2005)
(concluding there was no due process violation where pretrial detainee was placed in
Appellate Case: 21-3065 Document: 010110613247 Date Filed: 12/02/2021 Page: 5

-- 5 of 7 --

6
segregation as a managerial decision for lack of bed space in general population and
as a security measure where detainee admitted to an escape plot from his previous
facility).
The district court also correctly determined that, to the extent Wooten asserted
a Sixth Amendment speedy-trial claim, he should have brought it either via a federal
habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or through the normal channels available in
his state criminal proceedings, see Capps v. Sullivan, 13 F.3d 350, 353-54 & n.2
(10th Cir. 1993) (recognizing that after exhausting his state remedies, a state pretrial
detainee may bring a Sixth Amendment speedy-trial claim under § 2241 to force the
state to go to trial, but noting that “federal courts should abstain from the exercise of
. . . jurisdiction if the issues raised . . . may be resolved either by trial on the merits in
the state court or by other state procedures available” (internal quotation marks
omitted)); see also Walck v. Edmondson, 472 F.3d 1227, 1235 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[A]
state court defendant attacking his pretrial detention should bring a habeas petition
pursuant to the general grant of habeas authority contained within 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241.”).
Finally, the district court correctly determined that Wooten’s claim for
compensatory damages was barred by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e), which states:
No Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail,
prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury
suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury or
the commission of a sexual act . . . .
Appellate Case: 21-3065 Document: 010110613247 Date Filed: 12/02/2021 Page: 6

-- 6 of 7 --

7
Id. Wooten sought compensatory damages “for [the] mental [and] physical stress of
unlawfully being incarcerated [without a] speedy trial and years of solitary
confinement.” R. at 300 (capitalization omitted). He did not, however, identify a
physical injury or sexual act as a result of the alleged speedy-trial violation or his
placement in solitary confinement. Consequently, his claim for compensatory
damages was barred. See Searles v. Van Bebber, 251 F.3d 869, 876 (10th Cir. 2001)
(recognizing that § 1997e(e) “limits the remedies available . . . if the only injuries are
mental or emotional”); Perkins v. Kan. Dep’t of Corr., 165 F.3d 803, 807 (10th Cir.
1999) (holding that § 1997e(e) barred claim for compensatory damages to the extent
plaintiff alleged only mental or emotional harm). 4
III
The district court’s judgment is affirmed. Wooten’s motion to proceed without
prepayment of costs and fees is granted.
Entered for the Court
Joel M. Carson III
Circuit Judge
4 Although Wooten referred to “physical stress,” R. at 300, he did not allege
that he suffered any “physical injury” as required by § 1997e(e). We also note that
the first amended complaint did allege injury and sexual assault, but those allegations
do not appear in the operative complaint, so we may not consider them. See Mink v.
Suthers, 482 F.3d 1244, 1254 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[A]n amended complaint
super[s]edes an original complaint and renders the original complaint without legal
effect.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Appellate Case: 21-3065 Document: 010110613247 Date Filed: 12/02/2021 Page: 7

-- 7 of 7 --