White v. Golder , 245 F. App'x 763 ( 2007 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
August 14, 2007
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
M AR TEL W HITE,
Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 07-1114
v. District of Colorado
GARY GOLDER, W arden, Sterling (D.C. No. 07-CV-111-ZLW )
Correctional Facility; C. SOARS,
Administrative Head or Designee;
M ICHELE LAPO RTE, Hearing
Chairperson; JASON ZW IM , Lt.;
TIM OTHY M CGILL, Lt.,
Defendants-Appellees.
OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before BR ISC OE, M cKA Y, and M cCO NNELL, Circuit Judges.
M artel W hite is a prisoner of the state of Colorado proceeding pro se.
After a disciplinary hearing at the Sterling Correctional Facility, M r. W hite was
*
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); 10 th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is
therefore 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 This order and judgment is not
binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and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 10 th Cir. R. 32.1.
found guilty of fighting with another inmate. He was fined and lost some good
time credit. M r. W hite brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting
violations of his civil rights during, and resulting from, the disciplinary hearing.
He appeals from the district court’s sua sponte decision dismissing his claims as
frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
W e review a district court’s dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B) for abuse of
discretion. M cWilliams v. Colorado, 121 F.3d 573, 574–75 (10th Cir. 1997). In
accordance with § 1915(e)(2)(B), we are required to dismiss an in form a pauperis
appeal if w e determine that it is frivolous. This Court has held that an appeal is
frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact.” Thom pson v.
Gibson, 289 F.3d 1218, 1222 (10th Cir. 2002). Because M r. W hite is proceeding
pro se, we construe his complaint liberally. Perkins v. Kan. Dep’t of Corr., 165
F.3d 803, 806 (10th Cir. 1999).
M r. W hite argues on appeal that his due process rights were violated
because he w as not given notice of the potential penalties before his hearing. H e
did not present this claim in district court. Federal appellate courts w ill rarely
consider issues not raised in the district court. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S.
106, 120 (1976); Lyons v. Jefferson Bank & Trust, 994 F.2d 716, 720–21 (10th
Cir. 1993). M r. W hite has not set forth any “special circumstance” that requires
us to review this issue despite lack of preservation below. United States v.
Windrix, 405 F.3d 1146, 1156 (10th Cir. 2005).
-2-
In any event, notice of potential penalties is not one of the requirements of
due process. In Wolff v. M cDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), the Supreme Court
held that due process requires that a prisoner facing a disciplinary hearing be
provided advance written notice of the charges, “the opportunity ‘to call
witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense,’” and “a ‘written
statement of the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and the reasons’ for the
disciplinary action.” Smith v. M aschner, 899 F.2d 940, 946 (10th Cir. 1990)
(quoting Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563–66). M r. W hite does not claim that he was
denied any of the rights articulated in Wolff. Indeed, the record shows that he was
given notice of the hearing, the opportunity to defend himself, and a written
statement of the evidence the factfinder relied on. Therefore, his due process
claim was properly dismissed.
M r. W hite also asserts a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. W e have
reviewed the district court’s opinion dismissing this claim and find its reasoning
and conclusions correct. To prevail on an equal protection claim, a plaintiff must
show that the government has treated him differently than others w ho are
similarly situated. See Penrod v. Zavaras, 94 F.3d 1399, 1406 (10th Cir. 1996).
As part of his punishment for fighting, M r. W hite was ordered to pay restitution
of $410.20, half of the medical costs associated with his fight. He claims the
restitution order violates his equal protection rights because other inmates are not
ordered to pay restitution. Because M r. W hite does not claim that this treatment
-3-
resulted from a suspect classification, his punishment complies with the equal
protection of the laws so long as it is rationally related to a legitimate government
interest. See Templeman v. Gunter, 16 F.3d 367, 371 (10th Cir. 1994). M r. W hite
has not presented any evidence to prove that the distinction between himself and
others “was not reasonably related to some legitimate penological purpose.” Id.Therefore, we affirm the dismissal of this claim.
The appeal is DISM ISSED. This dismissal counts as a strike under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g). Appellant’s motion to proceed in form a pauperis is also
DENIED. Plaintiff is reminded that he is obligated to make partial payments to
this court until the entire appellate filing fee is paid in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b).
Entered for the Court,
M ichael W . M cConnell
Circuit Judge
-4-