Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07024/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07024-0/pdf.json

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

---

• 

.. FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

T~nth C,r,.,,it 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 6 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

LIONEL DOUGLASS TUCKER, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

H.N.S. SCOTT, Warden of Jackie ) 

Brannon Correctional Center; ) 

GARY D. MAYNARD, et al . , ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

No. 91-7024 

(D.C. No. 90-315-S) 

(E.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, 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 cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This case is before us on appellant's motion for leave to 

appeal without prepayment of fees. The trial court refused to 

*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. 

Appellate Case: 91-7024 Document: 010110118831 Date Filed: 06/06/1991 Page: 1 
certify that this appeal is taken in good faith. 28 u.s.c. 

§ 1915(a). The appeal may not, therefore, be taken in forma 

pauperis. Id. Our review of the record and the issues also 

persuades us the appeal should be dismissed because Mr. Tucker can 

make no rational argument on either the law or the facts to 

support his case. 

Mr. Tucker is an inmate acting prose claiming violations of 

his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He claims that 

disciplinary proceedings arising out of an altercation between 

himself and another inmate denied him due process, and that the 

evidence presented at the hearing was insufficient to find him 

guilty. Mr. Tucker also claims that his Sixth Amendment 

confrontation clause rights were violated, that his earned time 

credits were revoked unconstitutionally, and that his higher 

security classification constituted cruel and unusual punishment. 

The district court dismissed all of Mr. Tucker's claims under 28 

u.s.c. § 1915(d), ruling that they lacked an arguable basis in 

either law or fact. 

Upon reviewing the record, we believe the district court was 

correct in holding that the disciplinary proceeding comported with 

the requirements of the Due Process Clause as enunciated in 

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). Mr. Tucker claims that 

his disciplinary hearing was not conducted by an impartial 

decision maker. However, prison disciplinary actions do not 

trigger the full range of rights required in a criminal 

prosecution, and he is not entitled to a decision maker 

independent of the prison system. Id. at 570-71. Mr. Tucker 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-7024 Document: 010110118831 Date Filed: 06/06/1991 Page: 2 
1 

; fails to specify, and we fail to find in the record, any other due 

process violations in his disciplinary hearing. Likewise, his 

argument that the evidence was insufficient to find him guilty of 

assaulting another inmate is equally without merit under the 

standard of Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Inst., 

Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454-56 (1985). 

Mr. Tucker next claims that his Sixth Amendment confrontation 

clause rights were violated at the hearing, yet the law is clearly 

established that he has no such rights at a prison disciplinary 

hearing. Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 321-23 (1976). 

Also, it is clearly established that, absent the creation of a 

liberty interest by the state, security classification of inmates 

is a matter left to the discretion of prison officials and 

therefore does not present due process issues. Hewitt v. Helms, 

459 U.S. 460 (1983); Meachum v. Fane, 427 U.S. 215 (1976). Since 

Mr. Tucker has failed to allege the creation of a liberty 

interest, he has no due process claim in maintaining his security 

classification. Similarly, Mr. Tucker's allegations that his 

punishment was cruel and unusual fall far short of the level of 

conduct prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. Rhodes v. Chapman, 

452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). 

Finally, Mr. Tucker asserts that his earned time credits were 

revoked in violation of due process. Yet, the Martinez report 

contained in the record shows that while these earned time credits 

were initially revoked, this revocation was subsequently 

suspended, mooting Mr. Tucker's due process claim. Mr. fuc~r 

does not dispute this finding, nor does he present any evidence to 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-7024 Document: 010110118831 Date Filed: 06/06/1991 Page: 3 
.. 

' show that his credits were not restored. Mr. Tucker also claims 

on appeal that he was denied access to incident reports and other 

documents prior to his hearing, and that he was not given a 

written statement of the facts relied on and the reason for the 

conclusions reached at the hearing. Since these claims were 

raised for the first time on appeal, we will not consider them. 

Therefore, we believe the district court did not err in 

dismissing all of Mr. Tucker's claims under 28 u.s.c. § 1915(d), 

as they are all without merit, either lacking an arguable basis in 

fact or law. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). The 

motion to appeal without prepayment of fees is DENIED, and the 

appeal is DISMISSED. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 

(1962); Ragan v. Cox, 305 F.2d 58 (10th Cir. 1962). 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue f .orthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-7024 Document: 010110118831 Date Filed: 06/06/1991 Page: 4