Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06012/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06012-0/pdf.json

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

---

... 

PILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States ~rt ~f Appeals Tenth C1raut 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

STEVEN QUENTIN DYER, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

and ) 

) 

ANTHONY Q. HICKS, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

DAN MERRIETT; DALE SPENCE, Co. 1; ) 

STEVE FLETCHER; PETER C. BELL; ROBERSON,) 

Co. II; R. PUCKETT; VICKIE GOBER, · ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

NOV 8 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-6012 

(D.C. No. 89-257-W) 

( W. D • Okla • ) 

Before McKAY, McWILLIAMS, 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. 

~- submitted without oral argument. 

* 

The case is therefore ordered 

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: 90-6012 Document: 010110047847 Date Filed: 11/08/1990 Page: 1 
Plaintiffs, appearing prose and in forma pauperis, commenced 

this action pursuant to 42 u.s.c. S 1983 seeking damages and 

equitable relief for numerous alleged violations of their 

constitutional rights by Oklahoma prison officials. A special 

report was prepared and filed upon order of the district court, in 

accordance with Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 

1978)(the Martinez report) • Defendants moved to dismiss the 

• complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to 

state a claim, and as frivolous under 28 u.s.c. S 1915(d). The 

1 district court granted the motion and plaintiff Dyer appeals. We 

affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. 

This court has jurisdiction by virtue of 28 u.s.c. S 1291, 

and our review is de novo, applying the same standards as the 

district court. Thatcher Enters. v. Cache County Corp., 902 F.2d 

1472, 1473 (10th Cir. 1990). "A case should not be dismissed for 

failure to state a claim unless the court determines beyond doubt 

that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts which would entitle 

him to relief." Tri-Crown. Inc. v. American Fed. Sav. & Loan 

Ass'n, 908 F.2d 578, 582 (10th Cir. 1990)(citing Grider v. Texas 

Oil & Gas Corp., 868 F.2d 1147, 1148 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 

110 s. Ct. 76 (1989)). Similarly, dismissal of a complaint for 

frivolousness requires a determination that the complaint "lacks 

an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 

109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831 (1989). 

1 Plaintiff Hicks was not named as an appellant in the notice 

of appeal. Accordingly, under Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 

487 U.S. 312 (1988), Hicks' appeal must be dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-6012 Document: 010110047847 Date Filed: 11/08/1990 Page: 2 
, 

I 

' Plaintiff Dyer was a prisoner in the Oklahoma City Community 

Treatment Center (OKCCTC) at the time of the events leading to his 

complaint. Dyer's claims arise from his being charged with a 

violation of prison regulations while out on leave (a "Class A" 

misconduct), transferred to restrictive housing pending a hearing, 

found guilty of the charged misconduct in a disciplinary hearing, 

and subsequently transferred to the John Lilley Correctional 

Center, a minimum security facility in Boley, Oklahoma. 

Construing Dyer's complaint liberally as required by Haines 

v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), his allegations can be grouped 

into these major areas: 1) retaliation by prison officials at the 

John Lilley Correctional Center; 2) conditions in restrictive 

housing at the OKCCTC amoun_ting to cruel and unusual punishment; 

3) restricted access to the courts; 4) equal protection violations 

and racial discrimination; 5) retaliation by prison officials at 

the OKCCTC; 6) lack of legal representation; and 7) various due 

process violations. His due process allegations can be further 

broken down to include claims relating to the following stages of 

the disciplinary proceeding against him: a) the decision to place 

him in restrictive housing; b) the investigative phase; c) the 

pre-hearing preparation period; d) the hearing itself; e) the 

post-hearing notification; and f) his security reclassification. 

Dyer seeks damages and general equitable and injunctive relief and 

further asks that the guilty verdict against him for misconduct be 

set aside, his earned credits be restored, and various procedures 

be required in prison disciplinary hearings. 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-6012 Document: 010110047847 Date Filed: 11/08/1990 Page: 3 
In reviewing a decision to dismiss for failure to state a 

claim in a pro se case, "we must decide whether, liberally 

construing plaintiffs' allegations, accepting them as true, but 

also viewing them within the context of the undisputed facts 

developed in the record, plaintiffs can make any argument, based 

upon law or fact, in support of the claims asserted." Reed v. 

Dunham, 893 F.2d 285, 286 (10th Cir. 1990)(citations omitted). 

The district court failed to apply the proper standard of review 

to several of Dyer's due process claims. Instead, it appears to 

have adopted statements from the Martinez report in the face of 

contradictory allegations, and decided these claims on the merits. 

This was error. The purpose of a Martinez report is limited to 

assisting the trial court "'in determining which facts alleged in 

the complaint were relevant, accurate, and subject to bona fide 

dispute.'" Sampley v. Ruettgers, 704 F.2d 491, 493 n.3 (10th Cir. 

1983)(quoting Martinez v. Chavez, 574 F.2d 1043, 1046 (10th Cir. 

1978)); see also Reed v. Dunham, 893 F.2d at 287 n.2 

(investigative report meant only to identify and clarify bona fide 

disputes, not resolve them). 

Dyer's due process allegations concerning the investigative 

phase, the hearing, and the post-hearing notification are 

controlled by the Supreme Court's decision in Wolff v. McDonnell, 

418 U.S. 539 (1974). Under Wolff, a prisoner punished by the loss 

of earned credits2 must receive, as a constitutional minimum, 

2 The Supreme Court in Wolff held that the deprivation of "good 

time credits" affected a liberty interest under Nebraska law. 418 

U.S. at 558. We note that the Oklahoma Supreme Court has held 

that loss of earned credits affects a liberty interest. Mitchell 

v. Meachum, 770 P.2d 887, 890 (Okla. 1988). 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-6012 Document: 010110047847 Date Filed: 11/08/1990 Page: 4 
' ~ advance written notice of the charges against him and a written 

statement of the fact-finder of the evidence relied on and the 

basis for any punishment. Id. at 563-64. Additionally, the Court 

found a limited right to call witnesses and present other 

evidence. Id. at 566. 

Dyer alleges that he was not given a written statement 

describing the evidence relied on in reaching a guilty verdict and 

the basis for the punishment imposed, as required by Wolff. The 

district court, relying on the Martinez report, held that Dyer had 

received the required written statement: "[t]he Special Report 

reflects that a written misconduct report was completed and 

delivered to plaintiff Dyer .. This Report further reflects 

that the evidence relied upon by the institution was incorporated 

within the Report." Rec. Vol. I, Doc. 32 at 4. The Martinez 

report contains a copy of the report delivered to Dyer following 

his hearing, Supp. Rec. Vol. I, Exhibit G. This report is a form 

which provides areas to record "Evidence Relied upon for Finding 

of Guilt" and "Basis for punishment imposed." Both areas were 

left blank. The record contains no other written statement which 

contains this required information. 

In Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 946 (10th Cir. 1990), 

this court held that a transcript of a disciplinary hearing, when 

provided to the charged prisoner, is "an adequate substitute for 

written findings." The record in this case reflects that Dyer's 

disciplinary hearing was taped. The record does not clearly 

indicate, however, whether the tape was available to Dyer before 

his appeal within the prison system, or whether the tape contains 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-6012 Document: 010110047847 Date Filed: 11/08/1990 Page: 5 
the required information, namely a recital of the evidence relied 

on and the basis for his punishment. Dyer's allegations that he 

did not receive proper post-hearing notification are, therefore, · 

uncontroverted by the record and state a claim for violation of 

his Wolff due process rights. 

Dyer also alleges facts which implicate his right to an 

impartial decision-maker. He alleges that Fletcher, the 

disciplinary officer presiding over his hearing, was biased 

because Dyer had assisted another inmate in filing a grievance 

against Fletcher and because Fletcher was in - a supervisory role 

over Spence, the prison official who had charged Dyer with 

misconduct. The district court dismissed this claim on the basis 

of OKCCTC operational policy as delineated in the Martinez report, 

stating: "Fletcher was not directly involved [with the offense]" 

and "no other bias has been shown." The OKCCTC policies do not 

limit bias to direct involvement with the offense. See Supp. Rec. 

Vol. I, Exhibit A at 9. However, we agree that Dyer's bias claim 

against Fletcher should be dismissed, because Dyer alleged no 

injury as a result of the bias. Dyer himself claimed that 

Fletcher found him not guilty, but was told to change the finding 

to guilty by Dan Merriett. Nonetheless, this allegation 

implicates arbitrary decision-making in Dyer's hearing and, 

therefore, due process. See Wolff, 418 U.S. at 571 ("hazard of 

arbitrary decisionmaking" implicates due process). Merriett 

controverts Dyer's allegations in his affidavit, Supp. Rec. Vol. 

I, Exhibit PP, but that alone will not support a dismissal of this 

claim under the applicable standard. Dyer's allegations find 

6 

Appellate Case: 90-6012 Document: 010110047847 Date Filed: 11/08/1990 Page: 6 
' 

support in the record3 and state a claim for deprivation of his 

due process rights. 

Finally, Dyer alleges that OKCCTC policy requires a threeperson panel to preside over hearings of Class A misconducts. 

Wolff does not mandate such a panel, and the Martinez report does 

not address this issue. While the district court correctly noted 

that Dyer does not allege a specific source for such a right, we 

do not believe that this is a proper basis for dismissal of this 

claim. Following the district court's dismissal of his complaint, 

Dyer filed a "Motion for Leave to Submit Current Inmate Handbook 

in Review." His motion, treated as a Motion to Alter or Amend 

Judgment, was denied. See Appellee's Brief at 3-4. Plaintiffs' 

appeal brief appears to allege that the right to a three-person 

panel is found in both or either of the Offender Management and 

Service Manual or the inmate handbook. Under the liberal 

construction standards of Reynoldson v. Shillinger, 907 F.2d 124, 

126 (10th Cir. 1990), we believe that Dyer should have been given 

an opportunity to cure this defect by leave to amend his complaint 

or other procedure. 

The district court failed to address several of Dyer's 

claims. Dyer alleges due process violations in the investigatory 

phase of his disciplinary hearing. Under OKCCTC procedure, an 

investigator is appointed who will investigate the charges, 

3 The misconduct form given to Dyer, Supp. Rec. Vol. I, Exhibit 

G, indicates that the not guilty blank was originally checked, 

then marked out and initialled by Fletcher. Additionally, the 

lack of information under "Evidence Relied Upon" and "Basis for 

Punishment" comports with an initial finding of not guilty. Dyer 

also reports overheard conversations that support his allegations. 

7 

Appellate Case: 90-6012 Document: 010110047847 Date Filed: 11/08/1990 Page: 7 
., 

including talking to witnesses designated by the charged prisoner. 

Following investigation, the investigator can dismiss the charges 

or recommend that the charges be heard. Dyer alleges that 

Puckett, the investigator, "treated the investigation as just a 

[bothersome formality]" and that he was not neutral in obtaining 

statements from Dyer's designated witnesses, statements that were 

read into the hearing record as evidence. Dyer does not complain 

about the investigatory procedure, but his allegations implicate 

the right to call witnesses and present evidence guaranteed in 

Wolff, 418 U.S. at 566, and state a claim for violation of that 

right. 

The complaint includes several allegations of improper intent 

or retaliation by OKCCTC officials. These allegations, accepted 

as true under the applicable standard, state separate claims under 

section 1983. As this court said in Smith v. Maschner, "'[i]t is 

well established that an act in retaliation for the exercise of a 

constitutionally protected right is actionable under [42 U.S.C.] 

Section 1983 even if the act, when taken for a different reason, 

would have been proper.'" 899 F.2d at 948 (quoting Buise v. 

Hudkins, 584 F.2d 223, 229 (7th Cir. 1978), cert denied, 440 U.S. 

916 (1979)). We remand Dyer's various retaliation claims to the 

district court to consider whether any of his allegations 

implicate constitutional rights. 

The district court should, on remand, apply the proper 

standard of review to each of the claims discussed above. 

Accordingly, and in light of this remand, the court may also wish 

to reconsider Dyer's request for appointed counsel. 

8 

Appellate Case: 90-6012 Document: 010110047847 Date Filed: 11/08/1990 Page: 8 
Caruth v. Pinkney. 683 F.2d 1044, 1049-50 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. 

denied, 459 U.S. 1214 (1983)(discussing analytical framework for 

decision to provide counsel in a civil case). Additionally, the 

district court should dismiss Dyer's claims relative to the John 

Lilley Correctional Center without prejudice. Finally, the 

district court should provide some method for Dyer to correct his 

complaint to more specifically identify the source of the alleged 

right to a three-person panel for disciplinary hearings of Class A 

misconducts. We affirm the district court's opinion in all other 

respects, for substantially the same reasons contained in the 

district court's memorandum opinion, dated November 30, 1989. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN 

PART, and REMANDED for further action consistent with this 

opinion. Plaintiff Hicks' appeal is DISMISSED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

9 

Appellate Case: 90-6012 Document: 010110047847 Date Filed: 11/08/1990 Page: 9