Anthony Hamilton-Smith v. W. New Mexico Corr. Facility, Educ. Dep't, 991 F.2d 805 (10th Cir. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Anthony Hamilton-Smith v. W. New Mexico Corr. Facility, Educ. Dep't, 991 F.2d 805 (10th Cir. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“once inside legally, here with plaintiff's consent, the potential for danger justified ... a limited protective sweep.”
37 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: CRAIG v. HARRY (paed, 2025-03-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) CRAIG v. HARRY
E.D. Pa. · 2025 · signal: see, e.g. · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the mere threat of force, while perhaps intimidating, is not excessive force.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) GUSEMAN BY GUSEMAN v. Martinez
D. Kan. · 1998 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
once inside legally, here with plaintiff's consent, the potential for danger justified ... a limited protective sweep.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Guseman ex rel. Guseman v. Martinez
D. Kan. · 1998 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
once inside legally, here with plaintiffs consent, 'the potential for danger justified ... a limited protective sweep.
discussed Cited "see" Theodore S. Bledsoe v. Gary Stotts, Nadine K. Belk, Theodore S. Bledsoe v. Louis E. Bruce, Steven J. Davies
10th Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bledsoe v. Bruce, 991 F.2d 805 , 1993 WL 96894 , at * * 2 (10th Cir. Mar. 31, 1993). 4 Mr. Bledsoe thereafter appealed the court's grant of summary judgment to defendants on some of his claims in No. 90-3342-S. We dismissed that appeal as it was taken from a nonfinal order.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Knox v. Sharp
W.D. Okla. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence low
STAT. tit. 57 § 549(5) (stating that “[f]unds from [inmates’ mandatory savings accounts] may be used by the inmate for fees or costs in filing a civil or criminal action”); see also Pack v. Kaiser, 991 F.2d 805 (10th Cir. 1993) (recognizing Oklahoma law allows inmates to utilize funds in their mandatory savings accounts to pay court-required filing fees and “prisoners may be required to utilize funds in prison accounts in order to initiate litigation”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re Montoya
Bankr. D.N.M. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Fritz v. Hammons, 991 F.2d 805 (10th Cir.1993) (Table) (“Judges are ... entitled to absolute immunity from suits for civil damages when such suits are predicated on the performance of judicial acts.”) (citing Schepp v. Fremont County, 900 F.2d 1448, 1451 (10th Cir.1990)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Anthony Hamilton-Smith
v.
Western New Mexico Correctional Facility, Education Department
92-2188.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Mar 30, 1993.
991 F.2d 805
Published
3 passages pin-cited by 3 cases
Pinpoint authority: #31,306 of 633,719
Citer courts: D. Kansas (2) · E.D. Pennsylvania (1)

991 F.2d 805

NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order.

Anthony HAMILTON-SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WESTERN NEW MEXICO CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 92-2188.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

March 30, 1993.

Before TACHA, BALDOCK and KELLY, Circuit Judges.[*]

ORDER AND JUDGMENT[**]

PAUL KELLY, Jr., Circuit Judge.

1

Mr. Hamilton-Smith, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint with prejudice. Mr. Hamilton-Smith sought monetary damages, and later equitable relief, against the defendant correctional institution on the grounds that he had been required to attend literacy classes. Prior to his criminal activities, Mr. Hamilton-Smith claims that he attained an exemplary college education, complete with advanced degrees, and that literacy classes in his case are ludicrous and in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The former may well be true, but the latter claim will not be successful in this case because the State is immune from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment. See Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Feeney, 495 U.S. 299, 304 (1990); Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167 n. 14 (1985). Additionally, the events complained of simply cannot constitute deliberate indifference which results in the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain necessary to a claim of cruel and unusual punishment. See Wilson v. Seiter, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 2326 (1991). The district court properly dismissed the complaint with prejudice as based on inarguable legal theories. See Denton v. Hernandez, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1733 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).

2

AFFIRMED. The motion for issuance of letters rogatory is DENIED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

*

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.R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The cause therefore is ordered submitted without oral argument

**

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir.R. 36.3