Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07019/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07019-0/pdf.json

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

---

" FlLiD 

Uoired Sta- Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

oc; 2 $ 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Cleek 

JOE SUITS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

vs. 

R. MICHAEL CODY, Warden; MIKE 

CARR; BOB COMBS; KAREN BLAKELY; 

JIM DAVIS; KEN DAVIS; and 

GERALD CARTER, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-7019 

(D.C. No. 89-460-C) 

(E.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK ** and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

Plaintiff-appellant, Joe Suits, appeals from the district 

court's dismissal pursuant to 28 u.s.c. S 1915(d) of his civil 

rights complaint against employees of the Oklahoma Department of 

Corrections. According to Suits, the defendants deprived him of 

his constitutional rights by using confidential and untrue 

statements against him in two offense reports which resulted 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. The cause therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 90-7019 Document: 010110064925 Date Filed: 10/29/1990 Page: 1 
numerous punishments. We have carefully reviewed the appellate 

record as well as the parties briefs, and conclude that the 

district court properly dismissed Suit's complaint pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(d). The complaint "lacks an arguable basis" both in 

law and fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831 (1989). 1 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court substantially for the 

reasons set forth in its order of dismissal, a copy of which is 

attached hereto and made a part hereof. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

1 The district court labeled Suit's claims as ''unsubstantial." 

Under Neitzke, however, a claim is meritless where it lacks an 

arguable basis either in law or fact. Thus, the district correct 

was technically incorrect in relying on pre-Neitzke cases for the 

§ 1915(d) standard. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-7019 Document: 010110064925 Date Filed: 10/29/1990 Page: 2 
IN TI-IE UNITED STATES DISfRICT COURT FOR TIIE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

JOE SUITS, ) 

) 

Plaintiff ) 

) 

v. ) No. 89-460-C 

) 

R. MICHAEL CODY, et al., ) FILED 

) 

MAR 2 6 mo Defendants ) 

lf'U.t.·A••a.~ 

ORDER .,.._ 

C~U.1...L.~ 

~ca.-

This action is before the court on defendants' motion to dismiss. The court 

has before it for consideration plaintiffs complaint, defendants' motion to dismiss, 

plaintiffs response to the motion, and a Special Report prepared by the 

Department of Corrections at the direction of the court, in accordance with 

Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978), Martinez v. Chavez, 574 F.2d 

1043 (10th Cir. 1978), and Robinson v. Benton, 579 F.2d 70 (10th Cir. 1978). 

Plaintiff is an inmate of the Jess Dwm Correctional Center at Taft, 

Oklahoma. He instituted this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 seeking 

declaratory and injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages for 

claimed deprivations of his civil rights. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that 

defendants have deprived him of his constitutional rights under the Fifth and 

Fourteenth Amendments by using confidential statements against him in an offense 

report and that due ·to that offense he was denied certain privileges, lost earned 

work credits, transferred to. a different job, threatened, denied parole, lost a pay 

increase, and denied travel with an alcohol and drug rehabilitation group. 

The Special Report prepared by the Department of Corrections and filed 

herein shows: 

1 

Appellate Case: 90-7019 Document: 010110064925 Date Filed: 10/29/1990 Page: 3 
l , 

Plaintiff was cited for a Sexual Activity offense and confidential 

statements were submitted by female offenders regarding that offense. 

Before a disciplinary hearing was held, the offense was handled as an 

informal offense report. The records of such informal procedures are 

destroyed. The procedures were in accord with the institutional manual. 

(Attachment A). Plaintiff was placed on a different work crew, but he was 

not removed from his job, did not lose earned credits or a pay raise, was 

not threatened, and had another offense report handled according to 

institutional procedures. (Attachments B-H & S). Plaintiff did not qualify 

for placement in the ''honor dorm", which has been discontinued. 

(Attachments I & J). Plaintiff was approved for travel with the alcohol and 

drug anonymous group, but due to lack of sponsorship, the group did not 

travel outside the institution. (Attachments J-P & R). The Pardon and 

Parole Board makes their decisions based on the inmates file and the Board 

investigator's recommendation. (Attachment Q). 

The court finds that the defendants acted according to proper pnson 

procedures throughout the course of plaintiffs offense report hearings and that 

plaintiff was afforded an appeal and review of the proceedings. The court finds 

that plaintiff was given an hiformal offense hearing which comported v:"ith due . 

process of law and that plaintiff was not deprived of any constitutional rights by 

the defendants. Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976); Wolff v. McDonnell, 

418 U.S. 539 (1979). It is well settled that disciplinary or offense proceedings are 

not criminal prosecutions, and the full panoply of rights due an inmate in such 

proceedings do not apply. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 556. 

The court finds that the plaintiff has received all earned credits to which 

he is entitled under the state statutes and institutional regulations , and that the 

classification and job assignments of plaintiff has been properly administered by 

the defendants. LeVier v. Woodson, 443 F.2d 360 (10th Cir. 1971). 

Plaintiffs complaint concerning denial of parole are matters of policy and 

administration, and the court finds that such policies are reasonable and proper 

and being correctly administered by defendants, as to this plaintiff, such that 

plaintiffs complaint is unsubstantial. LeVier v. Woodson, 443 F.2d 360 (10th Cir. 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-7019 Document: 010110064925 Date Filed: 10/29/1990 Page: 4 
. ._ 

1971). Further, no due process rights are accorded to an inmate under the 

Oklahoma Statutory scheme for granting paroles. Shirley v. Chestnut, 603 F.2d 

805 (10th Cir. 1979). 

Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiffs complaints are unsubstantial and 

that he has not suffered any deprivation of a constitutionally protected right. 

This court authorized the commencement of this action in forrna pauperis 

under the authority of 28 U.S.C. §1915. Subsection (d) of that statute permits the 

dismissal of a case when the court is satisfied that the action is frivolous. Nietzke 

v. Williams. 109 S.Ct. 1827 (1989). Moreover. both the Supreme Court and the 

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals have held that federal jurisdiction does not lie 

where a purported civil rights claim is simply unsubstantial. See Hagins v. Lavine. 

415 U.S. 528, 536 (1974); Wells v. Ward, 470 F.2d 1185, 1187 (10th Cir. 1972). 

In view of its holding that plaintiff has suffered no deprivation of rights 

constitutionally protected, the court concludes that this action is frivolous and that 

plaintiffs claim is unsubstantial. Accordingly. this action is. in all respects. 

dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this c9/.,_4 day of March, 1990. 

United States District Jud 

3 

I ~.ereby cP.:-tify tr.3t ~,11, ;:i,inr:Y.Pd im,trurr.ent 

it ":rue ;,_:;d c:::-:·cct cc,:; y of Ul'l cri~inoic..i 

f,le in my of~i-:e. 

/...TTEST:_ 

Appellate Case: 90-7019 Document: 010110064925 Date Filed: 10/29/1990 Page: 5