King v. Fields ( 1998 )


Menu:
  •                                                                           F I L E D
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    MAY 14 1998
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk
    RODNEY FRANCIS KING,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.                                                    No. 97-6327
    (D.C. No. CIV-96-1131-A)
    LARRY FIELDS; DELORES                                 (W.D. Okla.)
    RAMSEY; JOHN MIDDLETON;
    DAVID ARNEECHER,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before BALDOCK, EBEL, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
    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 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    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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. The 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.
    Plaintiff Rodney Francis King brought this action under 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    claiming defendants violated his right to due process in prison disciplinary
    proceedings. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants,
    and plaintiff appeals. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment
    de novo. See Kaul v. Stephan, 
    83 F.3d 1208
    , 1212 (10th Cir. 1996). Summary
    judgment is appropriate if there are no disputed issues of material fact and the
    moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See 
    id.
    A correctional officer discovered plaintiff and another inmate in a toilet
    stall. The officer’s incident report stated that the other inmate was sitting on the
    toilet, plaintiff was standing in front of him with his pants open, and they had
    been engaging in oral sex. Plaintiff was charged with misconduct for engaging in
    sexual activity, and he received notice of the offense report and of the scheduled
    disciplinary hearing. Plaintiff’s defense at the hearing was that he had not been
    engaging in oral sex with the other inmate, but instead, had been discussing
    a drug transaction with the inmate. The disciplinary hearing officer found
    plaintiff guilty of the offense, citing as the basis for his finding the correctional
    officer’s “statement that I/M King and Cook were engaging in oral sex.” R. Doc.
    18, Att. B at 1. Plaintiff’s administrative appeals were denied.
    In Wolff v. McDonnell, 
    418 U.S. 539
     (1974), the Supreme Court held that
    prisoners must be accorded due process in certain prison disciplinary proceedings.
    -2-
    Disciplinary proceedings meet    Wolff ’s due process requirements if they provide
    the inmate with “(1) advance written notice of the disciplinary charges; (2) an
    opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals, to
    call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense; and (3) a written
    statement by the factfinder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the
    disciplinary action.”   Mitchell v. Maynard , 
    80 F.3d 1433
    , 1445 (10th Cir. 1996)
    (internal quotation omitted).   Plaintiff contends that the statement defendants
    provided did not satisfy the third Wolff requirement. We agree with the district
    court that while the statement was brief, it adequately informed plaintiff of the
    evidence the factfinder relied on and the reason for the disciplinary action. The
    charge was not complex, and the evidence was limited. As the Seventh Circuit
    said in a similar situation, “there is no mystery about [the factfinder’s] reasoning
    process, despite the extreme brevity of its statement of reasons, [and] that
    statement is not so deficient as to create error of constitutional magnitude.”
    Saenz v. Young, 
    811 F.2d 1172
    , 1174 (7th Cir. 1987); see also Brown v. Frey,
    
    807 F.2d 1407
    , 1412 (8th Cir. 1986).
    We also reject plaintiff’s contention that the statement of reasons was
    inadequate because it failed to explain why the factfinder found the correctional
    officer more credible than plaintiff, as plaintiff contends is required by state rules
    and procedures. Any violation of state rules or procedures here did not rise to
    -3-
    constitutional dimension implicating due process concerns. Finally, we reject
    plaintiff’s contention that evidence he submitted created a disputed issue of
    material fact regarding whether the statement of reasons was adequate. At most,
    that evidence showed that another conclusion by the disciplinary officer was
    possible, not required, but it does not raise any question regarding the adequacy
    of the statement.
    The judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District
    of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.
    Entered for the Court
    David M. Ebel
    Circuit Judge
    -4-