Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06091/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06091-0/pdf.json

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

---

... 

FI LED 

Uoited S~ates Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

AUG 14 1990 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ROBERT L. HOECKER 

TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk 

GENE CLIFTON LEE, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) No. 90-6091 

) 

JACK COWLEY, Warden, J.H.C.C.;) 

RAY WISEMAN, J.H.C.C.; GARY D.) 

MAYNARD, Warden, Director of ) 

Prisons; JAMES SAFFLE, Warden,) 

o.s.P. > 

(W.O. Okla. CIV 89-1314-P) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, and EBEL, 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. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff brought a prose§ 1983 action in district court 

challenging the sanction of restitution imposed against him by 

prison officials after he pled guilty to the disciplinary 

infraction of escape. In his complaint, plaintiff also alleged 

* 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. 

Appellate Case: 90-6091 Document: 010110040843 Date Filed: 08/14/1990 Page: 1 
that a television and other personal property were improperly 

taken from him by prison officials. Treating defendants' motion 

to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment, the court granted 

summary judgment to defendant in its orders of November 28, 1989, 

and February 28, 1990. Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his 

S 1983 action. 

Plaintiff first argues that Oklahoma Department of 

Corrections regulations do not allow for or are unconstitutionally 

vague as to whether a prison can impose the sanction of 

restitution against a prisoner for overtime pay incurred by the 

prison during the recapture of the escaped prisoner. The 

applicable Department of Corrections regulation states that 

"[r]estitution may also be imposed for monetary loss due to 

services rendered as a direct result of a rule infraction." Okla. 

DOC Reg. OP-060401. 1 

The district court correctly found that the language of the 

regulation was broad enough to include restitution of overtime pay 

incurred as a result of a rule infraction. A statute or 

regulation is unconstitutionally vague if it permits arbitrary or 

discriminatory enforcement. See United States v. Mays, 902 F.2d 

1501, 1504 (10th Cir. 1990). We determine whether the regulation 

is valid by ascertaining whether an ordinary person exercising 

common sense would understand how to apply the regulation. Id. 

Because the language of the regulation specifically allows for 

1 Plaintiff filed a motion to supplement the record with a copy 

of the regulation language which differs from that cited in the 

order and judgment. However, at all relevant times the regulation 

contained the above cited language. Therefore, plaintiff's motion 

to supplement the record is denied. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6091 Document: 010110040843 Date Filed: 08/14/1990 Page: 2 
restitution of monetary loss due to services rendered as a result 

of a rule infraction, its ordinary meaning would permit 

restitution of overtime pay which resulted from the prisoner's 

rule infraction. Therefore, plaintiff was on notice that monetary 

losses incurred for services which resulted from his prison escape 

could be imposed against him. The regulation is not 

unconstitutionally vague. Plaintiff's§ 1983 challenge of the 

restitution sanction was properly dismissed. 

Plaintiff also argues that the district court committed 

reversible error in relying improperly on a special report ordered 

by the district court pursuant to Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 

(10th Cir. 1978), and in not following the dictates of Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 52. A district court cannot rely on a Martinez Report to 

resolve factual disputes. See Sampley v. Ruettgers, 704 F.2d 491, 

493 n.3 (10th Cir. 1983). However, the material facts underlying 

the district court's order were clearly set forth by the district 

court and were not in dispute. 

It is not disputed that: plaintiff escaped and was 

recaptured by prison officials; the prison incurred overtime pay 

in recapturing plaintiff; a sanction of restitution of the 

overtime pay was imposed against plaintiff and his personal funds 

frozen until he paid for the overtime; plaintiff's television was 

found in the possession of another inmate and not returned to 

plaintiff; and that, when plaintiff was transferred to another 

institution, he had to choose to donate or have someone pickup 

certain items of personal property which plaintiff could not mail 

because his funds were frozen. Because there is no dispute as to 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6091 Document: 010110040843 Date Filed: 08/14/1990 Page: 3 
• 

the material facts, we reject plaintiff's argument that the 

district court violated Rule 52 and improperly relied on the 

Martinez Report. 

We affirm the district courts dismissal of plaintiff's§ 1983 

claim. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-6091 Document: 010110040843 Date Filed: 08/14/1990 Page: 4