Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06294/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06294-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

., 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT . 

CECIL ALVIN PECE, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

PILED 

Uatted Sta~ Cou,t of Appeals 

Tenth Cfrruit 

l=IS 12 18RT 

ROBERT L. J.iO.EC!cER 

Clerk 

vs. ) 

) 

SHARON R. NEUMANN; CARLA H. KING; ) 

No. 90-6294 

(D.C. CIV-90-44-T) 

( W. D. Okla. ) · OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ) 

CORRECTIONS; LINDA CLARK; NANNETTA) 

ALLEN; SCOTT DARRELL, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.** 

Plaintiff-appellant Cecil Pece, a state prisoner, appeals pro 

se from the district court's grant of summary judgment to 

defendants in his 42 u.s.c. S 1983 claim against the Oklahoma 

Corrections Department and its personnel. In August 1989, 

plaintiff was transferred to pre-parole conditional release status 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** 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. 

Appellate Case: 90-6294 Document: 010110099919 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 1 
• 

pursuant to Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21 S 365 (West Supp. 1991). In 

September, plaintiff failed to report to his correctional officer 

and was arrested the following month. After a hearing before a 

prison disciplinary officer, plaintiff was found to have committed 

the disciplinary violation of escape whereupon his good time 

credits were revoked and pre-parole conditional release status 

terminated. He then filed a S 1983 action against defendants 

seeking damages and declaratory relief. Defendants moved to 

dismiss the action for failure to state a claim. The district 

court elected to treat this motion as one for sUDD11ary judgment and 

granted judgment to defendants. 

Plaintiff argues that he was denied due process of law 

because the Department of Qorrections made its determination that 

he had committed the disciplinary violation of escape after a 

hearing by a single disciplinary officer instead of a disciplinary 

committee. Plaintiff also argues that he had a due process right 

to a parole revocation hearing by the parole board before his preparole release status was terminated. Finally, he argues that the 

disciplinary officer's finding that he had escaped was supported 

by insufficient evidence because the disciplinary report was 

complied by another official and his requests for counsel and a 

witness were denied. 

We have reviewed the parties' briefs and the record on appeal 

construing plaintiff's prose pleadings liberally as required by 

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1970). Plaintiff's action 

seeking money damages against the Oklahoma Corrections Department 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6294 Document: 010110099919 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 2 
is barred by the eleventh amendment. See Greiss -v. State of 

Colo., 841 F.2d 1042, 1044 (10th Cir. 1988). As to the remaining 

defendants, we hold that, as a matter of law, the procedures under 

which defendant's escape was adjudicated satisfied the due process 

requirements set forward in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 

(1974). On the equal protection claim, Oklahoma law recognizes a 

qualitative distinction between pre-parole conditional supervision 

and parole. Compare Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 57, S 365 with Okla. 

Stat. Ann. tit. 57, S 332.7 (West. Supp. 1991). Prisoners on preparole conditional supervision are not similarly situated to 

parolees. Consequently the equal protection clause does not 

require Oklahoma correctional authorities to follow the same 

procedures in adjudicating the termination of pre-parole 

conditional supervision as utilized in adjudicating the revocation 

of parole. See City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 

U.S. 432, 439-440 (1985) (equal protection only requires that 

similarly situated persons be treated alike). 

The district court properly granted summary judgment to 

defendants. We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in 

the district court's order, a copy of which is attached hereto. 

AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6294 Document: 010110099919 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 3 
,., 

\ 

·J 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA , 

CECIL ALVIN PECE, 

Plaintiff 

vs. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

SHARON R. NEUMANN, CARLA H. ) 

KING; LINDA CLARK; NANNETA ) 

ALLEN, and SCOTT DARRELL, ) 

No. CIV-90-44-T 

~·-·- .. 

l.: L . 

-- ---... 

Defendants /Joei AL~--2 7_ 90: tfrr,o•~f;;;~t~~ ~ ~-•····~ 

MEMORANDUM OPINY.(] ~--· . -.. , .,, ___ _:,-;:. . . ---: 

The plaintiff, a state prisoner appearing pro .§g and in forrna 

pauperis, brings this action pursuant to 42 u.s.c. §1983 alleging 

a denial of certain constitutionally protected rights. An amended 

complaint has been filed and all defendants have moved to dismiss. 

A special report has been filed as ordered by the Court pursuant 

to Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978). Plaintiff 

given notice of his opportunity to respond consistent with 

.R.Civ.P. 56 and he has responded to the motion. 

Plaintiff's claims arise out of disciplinary actions taken 

when he was charged with escape while under pre-parole conditional 

supervision. See Okla. Stat. tit. 57, §365 (1989 Supp.). 

Plaintiff claims that the hearing on the misconduct report, 

resulting in termination of pre-parole status and forfeiture of 

good-time credits, violated his constitutional rights to due 

process and equal protection in several specified ways. 

Plaintiff's requested relief is a declaratory judgment that 

defendants violated the plaintiff's rights, expungement of the 

..... ' 

Appellate Case: 90-6294 Document: 010110099919 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 4 
disciplinary offense conviction, compensatory damages of $35 per 

day he is confined due to defendants' actions, and punitive damages 

and costs. 

In Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 u.s. 475, 500 (1973), the supreme 

Court held that when a state prisoner is challenging the fact or 

duration of his imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a 

determination that he is entitled to release or speedier release 

from that imprisonment, the sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas 

corpus. Thus, to the extent plaintiff requests expungement of his 

disciplinary offense conviction, it is assumed he seeks the 

concomitant restoration of good time credits, and such relief may 

be sought only in a habeas corpus petition after exhaustion of 

state remedies. Id; Gregory :v. Wyse, 512 F.2d 378, 381 (10th Cir. 

1975). There is a conflict among the Circuits as to the viability 

of a suit for damages under §1983 which has the effect of 

adjudicating a right to earlier release, such as plaintiff presents 

here. See Bressman v. Farrier, 900 F.2d 1305, 1316, n. 15 (8th 

Cir. 1990) (Heaney, Sr. J., concurring and dissenting). However, 

this Circuit has clearly determined that the relief requested 

determines whether a plaintiff may proceed under §1983. Schuemann 

v. Colorado State Bd. of Adult Parole, 624 F.2d 172, 173 n. 1 (10th 

cir. 1980); Gregory v. Wyse, 512 F.2d at 381; see also Wolff v. 

McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 554-555 (1974). As plaintiff has 

requested damages and declaratory relief, the Court will proceed 

to the merits of plaintiff's complaint. 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-6294 Document: 010110099919 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 5 
The facts are not in dispute. Under Oklahoma statute, certain 

inmates are eligible for pre-parole conditional supervision if 

certain conditions are met. In July of 1989, plaintiff was ' 

recommended for pre-parole conditional supervision and was 

thereafter transferred to such supervision on August 1, 1989. He 

was given complete orientation as to pre-parole conditional 

supervision requirements, including the fact that failure to report 

would be deemed escape. As part of his pre-parole conditional 

supervision, plaintitf was required to report every Wednesday to 

defendant King. on September 13, 1989, plaintiff failed to report 

as required and defendant King made numerous attempts to locate 

plaintiff through September 19. On that date, King completed an 

offense report regarding plaintiff's failure to report and as a 

consequence, a charge of escape was filed in the District Court of 

Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. Plaintiff was arrested on October 3, 

1989, at which time defendant Clark assumed supervision due to 

King's absence and leave status. Clark proceeded with the offense 

report originally prepared by defendant King. ~-11 investigation was 

~erformed by defendant Allen and plaintiff's request for a witness 

rlas denied because plaintiff failed to explain the substance or 

purpose of his proposed witness's testimony. Plaintiff was found 

guilty by disciplinary hearing officer, defendant Farrell, on 

October 12, 1989, after a hearing. No appeal or grievance 

concerning the disciplinary action was ever filed, and on October 

23, 1989, plaintiff pled guilty to the district court charge of 

escape from penitentiary. Plaintiff now asserts four causes of 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-6294 Document: 010110099919 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 6 
• 

action based upon these facts. First, he argues that his rights 

to equal p~otection and due process were violated because his preparole conditional supervision was terminated by a DOC employee and 

that he was denied the same neutral hearing provided in the case 

of probation and/or parole revocations. In his second cause of 

action, he alleges a violation of due process due to a finding of 

guilt on his misconduct offense without sufficient evidence, 

because a second supervising officer wrote the disciplinary report, 

and because his request for a witness and attorney was denied. In 

his third cause of action, plaintiff alleges a violation of due 

process because the disciplinary hearing was held by one 

disciplinary hearing officer instead of a committee, and finally, 

in his fourth cause of action, plaintiff merely reincorporates and 

realleges the first three claims. Defendants' motion to dismiss 

;Sserts that the Department of Corrections is absolutely immune 

:-om suit and all other individual defendants are protected by 

4ualified immunity. Additionally, defendants argue that plaintiff 

was afforded all process due him under state and federal law and 

. that his equal protection claim fails to state facts upon which 

relief can be granted. 

The Oklahoma Department of Corrections is immune from 

liability under the Eleventh Amendment. Griess v. State of 

Colorado, 841 F.2d 1042, 1044 (10th Cir. 1988) (per curiam); Meade 

v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1525 (10th Cir. 1988); see also Will v. 

Michigan Dept. of State Police, 109 s.ct. 2304 (1989). This 

defendant is entitled to dismissal. 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-6294 Document: 010110099919 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 7 
• 

Al though plaintiff argues that his pre-parole conditional 

supervision could not be revoked without the same procedural , 

safeguards applicable to revocation of probation or parole, the 

statutory establishment of pre-parole conditional supervision, at 

Okla. Stat. tit. 57, §365 (1989 Supp.) specifies that any violation 

of rule or condition would subject an inmate to the disciplinary 

proceedings established by the Department of Corrections. Okla. 

Stat. tit. 57, §165(E). Thus the probation/parole protections do 

not apply. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. at 560. Plaintiff was 

given advance written notice of the misconduct offense charged, an 

opportunity to request witnesses and present evidence in his own 

behalf, a written statement by the factfinder of the evidence 

relied on and the reasons for the discipline imposed. Thus, all 

process due him under the Cons ti tut ion has been afforded. See 

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. at 563-569. Plaintiff is not entitled 

to appointment of counsel in a disciplinary proceeding. Baxter v . 

. lmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 315 (1976); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 

~t 570. 

Al though plaintiff requested a witness, the right to call 

witnesses is necessarily "circumscribed by the penological need to 

provide swift discipline in individual cases." Ponte v. Real, 471 

U.S. 491, 495 (1985); See also Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. at 

320-323; Wolff v. McDonnell. 418 U.S. at 566. DOC regulations 

leave treatment of requested witnesses to the discretion of the 

investigator, whose action shall be documented and attached to the 

investigator's report. The investigator in this case complied with 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-6294 Document: 010110099919 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 8 
regulation, attaching a report indicating her disallowance of the 

requested -witness was for plaintiff's refusal to state the 

substance or purpose of the witness's testimony. This action was 

not arbitrary or capricious, was clearly within the discretion of 

the investigator, was supported as required by the regulation, and 

plaintiff has yet to state the substance of his proposed witness's 

testimony, or show how the failure to call this witness in any way 

prejudiced his rights or defense to the charge. No constitutional 

infringement is shown. 

Insofar as plaintiff's claims of insufficient evidence and 

improper personnel assignment with respect to his disciplinary 

action, his allegations are not supported by the facts and are 

without merit. Finally, al though plaintiff makes vague allegations 

of a denial of equal protection of the laws, no facts alleged in 

:is complaint or in the response to the motion to dismiss would 

;upport a claim for relief based on equal protection. 

Plaintiff also claims that since his misconduct was heard 

before a single officer, rather than a disciplinary couw1ittea which 

he claims is required by .Okla. Stat. tit. 57, §138, his due process 

rights have been violated. The relevant portion of Okla. Stat. 

tit. 57, §138 (1988 Supp.) (in effect at the time of plaintiff's 

hearing) reads as follows: 

A. Every inmate of a state correctional 

institution shall have their term of 

imprisonment reduced monthly based upon the 

class level to which they are assigned. Earned 

credits may be subtracted from the total 

credits accumulated by an inmate, upon 

recommendation of the institution's 

disciplinary committee, following due process, 

6 

Appellate Case: 90-6294 Document: 010110099919 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 9 
and upon approval 

superintendent .... of the warden or 

The Court notes that the' Director of the Department of Corrections 

has the specific power to "prescribe ... rules for the demeanor of 

prisoners and punishment of recalcitrant prisoners or the treatment 

of incorrigible prisoners." Okla. Stat. tit. 57, §510(8). This 

power appears to be circumscribed by Okla. stat. tit. 57, §138's 

reference to disciplinary action by committee. Defendants have 

supplied no specific regulation abolishing the disciplinary 

committee process and substituting the single disciplinary officer 

process. However, the regulations on the disciplinary process 

refer to a single hearing officer and imply that the hearing will 

be before a single officer. (See Supplemental Special Report) 

Nonetheless, even assuming there was a state agency failure to 

follow procedure prescribed by state law, such failure does not by 

itself deprive an inmate of the process due him under the 

Fourteenth Amendment. In a recent case dealing with alleged 

violations of New York law which prohibited imposition of 

punishment for rule violations of which the inmate had not been 

provided a copy, the court observed: 

However, establishing a violation of state 

procedural law does not by itself establish a 

violation of the Due Process Clause of the 

Constitution. "Although local rules may offer 

greater protection than the Constitution" 

requires, such rules 'do not act as a ratchet 

tightening the Due Process Clause. Any such 

state procedural requirements remain only that, 

not independently cognizable in a section 1983 

lawsuit."' Panozzo v. Rhoads, 711 F.Supp. 941, 

944 (N.D. Ill. 1989), quoting Jones v. Board 

of Education, 651 F.Supp. 760, 766 (N.D. Ill. 

1986). See also Cleveland Board of Education 

7 

Appellate Case: 90-6294 Document: 010110099919 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 10 
• 

v. Loudermill. 470 u.s. 532, 541 (1985) ("once 

it is determined that the Due Process Clause 

applies, 'the question remains what process is 

-due.• (citation omitted). The answer to that 

question is-not to be found in the [state) 

statute.") 

McMillan v. Healey, 739 F.Supp. 153 (S.D. N.Y. 1990). The Court 

has found no cases holding that due process requires a hearing 

before a committee rather than a single hearing officer prior to 

the imposition of sanctions involving constitutionally protected 

property or liberty interests. The only question is whether the 

hearing was before a neutral and detached fact finder. Wolff v. 

McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 570-571 (1974). If the decisionmaker has 

not been involved in the investigation or prosecution of a case or 

some other form of personal involvement in the case, due process 

is satisfied. See Wolff v. McOOnnell, 418 U. s. at 592 (Marshall, 

Jr., concurring). See also Patterson v. Coughlin, 905 F.2d 564 

(2nd Cir. 1990); Merritt v. De Los Santos, 721 F.2d 598, 600-601 

( 7th Cir • 19 8 3 ) . There is no evidence in the record that the 

disciplinary hearing officer was not entirely fair and impartial. 

The Court finds that since plaintiff had a hearing before an 

impartial factf inder, there is no due process violation in the 

failure to hold a hearing before a disciplinary committee. 

Further, the plaintiff in this case has not established that any 

of the named defendants acted in violation of clearly established 

constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known 

and their claim of qualified immunity is well taken. See Mitchell 

v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985); Melton v. City of Oklahoma City. 

879 F.2d 706, 728-729, and n. 35 (10th Cir. 1989); Pueblo 

8 

Appellate Case: 90-6294 Document: 010110099919 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 11 
.. 

► 

Neighborhood Health centers, Inc. v. Losavio, 847 F.2d 642, 645 

(10th Cir.-1988). 

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court finds that the 

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief 

can be granted should be treated as a motion for summary judgment, 

that there is .no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that 

defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A judgment 

will enter on behalf of all defendants and against plaintiff. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this ( ~ _v1---_1 __ day of August, 1990. 

1 

--~_,, - ~-/7,, ◄ RALPH G. 'frHOMPSON -:;t== 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

0/ 

9 

::::-::-, 

Appellate Case: 90-6294 Document: 010110099919 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 12