Martel White v. C/o Elizabeth Stephenson; Capt. Clifford Gulliford, 10334

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
MARTEL WHITE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
C/O ELIZABETH STEPHENSON; CAPT.
CLIFFORD GULLIFORD, #10334,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
LT. ELIZABETH WOOD, #13057; 4
UNNAMED UNKNOWN
CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS AT
BUENA VISTA CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY,
Defendants.
No. 20-1229
(D.C. No. 1:19-CV-00875-RBJ-NRN)
(D. Colo.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before MATHESON, KELLY, and EID, Circuit Judges.**
_________________________________
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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 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.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
January 7, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 20-1229 Document: 010110461372 Date Filed: 01/07/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Plaintiff-Appellant Martel White, a state inmate appearing pro se, appeals from
the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights action seeking damages. 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983; White v. Stephenson, No. 19-cv-00875, 2020 WL 2832380 (D. Colo. June 1,
2020), adopting in part 2020 WL 4511179 (Mar. 24, 2020). Mr. White’s amended
complaint alleged (1) cruel and unusual punishment based a failure to prevent an
attack on him by rival gang members, (2) violations of the Fourteenth Amendment
based on defendants’ failure to initiate and follow the established procedure for
placing him in protective custody, and (3) excessive force in defendants returning
Mr. White to general population and in the use of pepper spray in breaking up a fight
in which Mr. White was the victim. Defendants moved to dismiss or in the
alternative for summary judgment.
The district court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and
dismissed all claims and the action with prejudice. The district court determined that
Mr. White’s official capacity claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity
and that the John Doe defendants were properly dismissed for want of specific facts
demonstrating excessive force. As for the remaining claims, the district court granted
the named defendants qualified immunity on the grounds that the law was not clearly
established.
On appeal, Mr. White raises some twenty-three issues in his brief. He objects
to various procedural steps in the course of the lawsuit, takes issue with the district
court’s statement of various facts, and contests whether the district court got it right
that the law was not clearly established. He argues that he has shown constitutional
Appellate Case: 20-1229 Document: 010110461372 Date Filed: 01/07/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
violations given clearly established law, some of which should be obvious without
citations to specific cases. We have reviewed these issues raised and affirm the
district court for substantially the same reasons it relied upon.
AFFIRMED. We grant Mr. White’s motion to proceed IFP and remind him
that he is obligated to continue making partial payments until the entire fee has been
paid.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 20-1229 Document: 010110461372 Date Filed: 01/07/2021 Page: 3

-- 3 of 3 --