Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03229/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03229-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

GARY LEE WILSON, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

vs. ) 

FI LED 

Utlittd States Coun of Appeals .,..'-"" th (ir(l· it 

FEB 8 1990 

:ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) 

THE HONORABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL ) 

OF THE UNITED STATES, RICHARD ) 

No. 89-3229 

(D.C. No. 89-3099-0) 

( D. Kan.) 

THORNBURGH; and ROBERT L. MATTHEWS,) 

WARDEN, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT ) 

OF JUSTICE, LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellants. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.** 

Plaintiff-appellant, Gary Wilson, an inmate at Leavenworth 

Federal Penitentiary, had his privilege of social visits suspended 

for a two year period after attempting to smuggle narcotics into 

the prison. During a visit by his wife, authorities observed an 

object pass from her mouth to his. A day later, Wilson, while in 

* 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. 

** 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. -

Appellate Case: 89-3229 Document: 01019963002 Date Filed: 02/08/1990 Page: 1 
_, 

a dry cell, passed five marble-sized balloons containing 

amphetamines. Although Wilson admitted his guilt to a 

disciplinary hearing officer, he internally appealed the 

suspension of his privilege to visit with individuals other than 

his wife as an abuse of the officer's discretion. After a review 

board upheld the hearing officer's decision, Wilson, prose, 

instituted this action for a writ of mandamus in the Kansas 

federal district court alleging a violation of his fifth amendment 

right to indictment by a grand jury and due process of law. The 

district court dismissed Wilson's complaint, and subsequently 

denied his motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis 

as not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Now before this 

court is Wilson's renewed motion for leave to proceed on appeal in 

forma pauperis. We deny the motion and dismiss the appeal. 

Wilson's claim that the fifth amendment's grand jury 

requirement is applicable to prison disciplinary proceedings is 

frivolous. By the amendment's plain language, the right to 

indictment by a grand jury applies only in criminal proceedings. 

In Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 316 (1976), the Supreme 

Court recognized that a prison disciplinary hearing is not a 

criminal proceeding. Thus, Wilson had no right to be charged by a 

grand jury before the hearing officer was entitled to impose 

sanctions for his malfeasance. Requiring a penal institution to 

convene a grand jury before imposing sanctions on an unruly inmate 

would place an overwhelming burden on a system charged not with 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-3229 Document: 01019963002 Date Filed: 02/08/1990 Page: 2 
the duty of prosecuting criminals but ensuring the safety of the 

institution in which they are incarcerated. 

An inmate accused of misconduct admittedly is entitled to 

some due process protections where a liberty interest is 

implicated. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 558-62 (1974). 

But even assuming arguendo that the denial of Wilson's visitation 

privileges implicates a liberty interest, his claim is without 

merit. Wilson does not challenge the procedures which led to his 

punishment; he admits guilt. Given his admission, we decline to 

disturb prison officials' chosen punishment. Prison officials' 

expertise in correctional matters, their ability to assess the 

needs of their institution, and their close proximity to the 

evidence puts them in a much better position than a federal court 

to determine the suitable punishment for a truculent inmate. As 

Chief Judge Murrah stated in Bethea v. Crouse, 417 F.2d 504, 505-

06 (10th Cir. 1969): "[T]he basic responsibility for the control 

and management of penal institutions, including the discipline, 

treatment, and care of those imprisoned, lies with the responsible 

administrative agency •... " See generally J. Gobert & N. 

Cohen, Rights of Prisoners§ 8.12 (1981). 

Ergo, plaintiff's motion to proceed on appeal in forma 

pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is DENIED. This appeal is 

DISMISSED pursuant to§ 1915(d) as wholly without merit. See 

Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831 (1989) (complaint 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-3229 Document: 01019963002 Date Filed: 02/08/1990 Page: 3 
frivolous under§ 1915 where it lacks arguable basis in law or 

fact} . 

SO ORDERED. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-3229 Document: 01019963002 Date Filed: 02/08/1990 Page: 4