Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01050/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01050-0/pdf.json

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

---

SCOTT ELLIOTT RAYMER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

WALLIS GUNNELS PARMENTER, ALAN 

BENNETT, JOHN EAVES, FRANK RICE, 

P. L. TEEHEE, T. CARACHI and 

Unknown Classification Officer (CCC), 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER- AND JUDGMENT* 

AUG 311992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-1050 

(D.C. No. 91-M-1990) 

(Dist. of Colorado} 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the 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}; Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Scott Elliott Raymer, pro se plaintiff-appellant, appeals 

from the district court's Order of Dismissal of his 42 U.S.C . § 

1983 action on the ground that Raymer failed to show a basis for 

* 

be 

for 

res 

This Order and Judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-1050 Document: 010110307934 Date Filed: 08/31/1992 Page: 1
relief. Raymer, an inmate of the State of Colorado, serving a 

sentence at the Buena Vista Correctional Facility, contends on 

appeal that the defendants violated his constitutionally protected 

rights of due process and equal protection of the law guaranteed 

him under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States 

Constitution, and that he was subjected to cruel and unusual 

punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. He argues that 

Colorado Correctional Center Regulations 300-20 and 600-2 created 

a liberty interest in his behalf which was violated when the 

defendants placed him in isolation without granting him procedural 

due process. 

The district court entered its Order of Dismissal based upon 

a review of the complaint, the plaintiff's Response to Order to 

Show Cause, the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction with 

attachments, the recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 

Richard M. Borchers, and the plaintiff's objection to that 

recommendation, concluding: 

The plaintiff's claim is that his custodial status 

as an inmate was unfairly changed because of a 

disciplinary hearing on May 29, 1991, based on a 

positive urine test. The plaintiff claims that this was 

a deprivation of rights protected by the due process 

clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and in violation of 

Department of Corrections regulations. This court 

concurs with the legal analysis of Magistrate Judge 

Borchers. 

(R., Vol. I, Tab 16). 

We affirm the district court's Order of Dismissal 

substantially for the reasons set forth in the "Recommendation of 

United States Magistrate Judge" dated December 10, 1991, a copy of 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-1050 Document: 010110307934 Date Filed: 08/31/1992 Page: 2
which is attached hereto. Id., Tab 12. 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court: 

James E. Barrett, 

Senior United States 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-1050 Document: 010110307934 Date Filed: 08/31/1992 Page: 3
'- . 

' 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Civil Action No. 91-M-1990 

SCOTT ELLIOTT RAYMER, 

Plaintiff, 

-vs.-

WALLIS GUNNELS PARMENTER, et al., 

Defendants. 

~!LED 

L.N:Tl:i) ITATU 018TAICT CCIUR1 

t>,HIIEA (",OLOIIA[)() 

.OEG.l O 1991 

JAMES R. MANSPEAKER . CLERK 

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Scott Elliott Raymer currently is serving a sentence at 

the Buena Vista Correctional Facility (BVCF). He initiated this action 

by filing a prose civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. S1983, 

alleging that his rights under the United States Constitution have been 

violated. He seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as 

monetary damages. He also has filed a motion for a preliminary 

injunction and requested that counsel be appointed to represent him. 

Pursuant to Rule 605 of the Local Rules of Practice of the United 

States District Court of the District of Colorado, this matter has been 

referred to Magistrate Judge Richard M. Borchers. On November 13, 

1991, the Court issued a show cause order to allow Plaintiff the 

opportunity to respond and provide any legal basis upon which the 

claims and parties should continue in this case. See Hall v. Bellmon, 

935 F.2d 1106(10th Cir.1991). Plaintiff responded to that order on 

December 2, 1991. Based upon a review of the complaint, the response 

to. the show cause order and the applicable law, a recommendation is 

Appellate Case: 92-1050 Document: 010110307934 Date Filed: 08/31/1992 Page: 4
made that the complaint be dismissed. It is further recommended that 

Plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel and for a preliminary 

injunction be denied. 

As Plaintiff is representing himself, his complaint will be 

construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21(1972); 

Collins v. Cundy, 603 F.2d 825, 827(10th Cir.1979). A complaint must 

be dismissed if, accepting the allegations as true, it appears beyond 

doubt that Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim 

that would entitle him to relief. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 415 U.S. 232, 236 

(1974); Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1526(10th Cir.1988). 

Plaintiff in this complaint alleges that on May 22, 1991, as a 

result of a positive urinalysis, he was transferred from the Colorado 

Correctional Center to the Denver Regional Diagnostic Center and placed 

in segregation. On May 28, 1991, Plaintiff received a Notice of Charges 

for alleged disciplinary infractions. He was found guilty at a 

disciplinary hearing on May 29, 1991 and received forty days punitive 

segregation, sixty days loss of privileges, and thirty days loss of 

good time. Plaintiff also was regressed to BVCF. 

Plaintiff contends that placing him in segregation prior to the 

hearing violated his constitutional rights. In order to satisfy the 

requirements of the Due Process Clause, when Plaintiff was placed in 

segregation, Defendants "were obligated to engage only in an informal, 

nonadversary review of the information supporting (Plaintiff's) 

placement in segregation, including whatever statement (Plaintiff) 

wished to submit, within a reasonable time after confining him to 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-1050 Document: 010110307934 Date Filed: 08/31/1992 Page: 5
administrative segregation." Hewitt v . Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 472 

(1982). Plaintiff alleges that he received a disciplinary hearing on 

May 29, 1991, and that was within a reasonable time after his placement 

in segregation. 

Plaintiff cites a number of Department of Corrections' (D.O.C.) 

regulations which he claims Defendants violated by placing him in 

segregation. He claims that the violations of these regulations 

violate his due process rights. In United States v. Ceceres, 440 U.S. 

741(1979), the Supreme Court held that governmental regulations only 

give rise to actionable claims when: 1) compliance with the regulation 

is mandated by the Constitution or federal law; 2) an individual has 

reasonably relied on the regulation promulgated for his benefit and has 

suffered substantially because of the violation of the regulation; or 

3) the violation of the regulation results in a denial of equal 

protection. Id. at 749-53. See also Dowdy v. Johnson, 510 F.Supp. 836 

(E.D.Va.1981)(prison regulations termed "guidelines"). None of the 

Ceceres factors are implicated here . Plaintiff's placement in 

segregation did not violate his due process rights. 

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants violated his due process 

rights at the disciplinary hearing. Prison disciplinary hearings are 

not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full panoply of rights due 

a defendant in such a prosecution do not apply. Wolff v. McDonnell, 

418 U.S. 539(1974). The minimum due process requirements for prisoners 

in the context of a disciplinary hearing are: (1) written notice of the 

charges brought against the inmate at least twenty-four hours before 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-1050 Document: 010110307934 Date Filed: 08/31/1992 Page: 6
the hearing; (2) the opportunity to call witnesses and present evidence 

at the hearing; and (3) a written statement by the fact-finder as to 

the evidence relied upon and the reason for any action taken. Id. at 

564-566. See also Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445(1985); Smith v. 

Maschner, 899 F.2d 940(10th Cir.1990). Plaintiff does not allege that 

prison officials failed to comply with any of these constitutional 

requirements. Rather, he is asserting rights which simply do not exist 

in the context of a prison disciplinary hearing. As discussed above, a 

violation of D.O.C. regulations does not, by itself, constitute a 

denial of due process. Plaintiff's due process rights were not 

violated at the disciplinary hearing. 

Plaintiff also claims that his regression to BVCF violated his 

rights and that Defendants have caused him to be denied parole. An 

inmate has no constitutional right to be placed in a particular 

correctional facility. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215(1976), rehearing 

denied by 429 U.S. 873 (1976). An inmate also has no federal 

constitutional right to release on parole. Greenholtz v. Inmates of 

Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1(1979). 

Even accepting as true all facts alleged in Plaintiff's complaint, 

he has failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be 

granted. His complaint should be dismissed. 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff Scott Elliott Raymer•s 

complaint be dismissed; and 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motions for appointment 

of counsel and for a preliminary injunction be denied. 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-1050 Document: 010110307934 Date Filed: 08/31/1992 Page: 7
FURTHER, IT IS ORDERED that under Rule 605 of the Local Rules of 

Practice of the United States District Court for the District of 

Colorado, the parties shall have ten days after service hereof to file 

any written objections with the assigned District Judge. The party 

filing an objection must specifically identify those findings or 

recommendations to which objections are being made. The District Court 

need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. A 

party's failure to file such written objections to proposed findings 

and recommendations contained in this document may bar the party from a 

de novo determination by the District Judge of the proposed findings 

and recommendations. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676-

83(1980); 28 u.s.c. §636(b) (1). Additionally, the failure to file 

\ written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within 

ten days after being served with a copy may bar the aggrieved party 

from appealing the factual findings of the Magistrate Judge that are 

accepted or adopted by the District Court. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 

140(1985). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of Local Rule 605 be attached to 

the copy of this Recommendation sent to Plaintiff . . r---

DATED and ENTERED this 

Judge 

5 

Appellate Case: 92-1050 Document: 010110307934 Date Filed: 08/31/1992 Page: 8
LOCAL RULES OF PRACTICE 

Rule 605 

Prisoner Petitions 

A. Subject to provisions of the United States Supreme Court Rules governing 

§ 2254 and § 2255 cases, the uniform rules of ancillary forms for use in the district 

courts within the Tenth Circuit have been adopted. These rules apply to .E!2. 

se petitions for writs of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U .S.C. § 2241 and § 2254 

and motions under Rule 35, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and to civil 

rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Copies of the uniform rules and ancillary 

forms shall be made available upon request made to the clerk. 

B. When presented for filing, .E!2. se petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, § 2254, 

and .E!2. se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 shall be delivered to a magistrate 

who shall review the motion and affidavit to proceed .!!!_ forma pauperis and rule 

thereon in accordance with 28 U .S.C. § 19 I 5. If the motion is granted, the 

magistrate shall promptly review the file and, if there is any basis for jurisdiction 

and possible merit, the magistrate shall direct the clerk to make service of process. 

C. If the magistrate determines that the case may be dismissed pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) or F.R.Civ.P. 12, the magistrate shall prepare a 

recommendation and appropriate order for consideration by a district judge, 

who shall at that time be selected as provided in Rule 200. 

D. These cases shall be assigned to a district judge drawn by lot and to a 

designated magistrate. The assigned magistrate shall review promptly all further 

pleadings and may: 

I. Issue such orders as may be needed to obtain a complete record. 

2. Co~duct such evidentiary hearings as may be necessary, including the 

conduct of on-site depositions and investigations. 

3. Prepare appropriate findings and recommendations for consideration 

by the district judge, copies of which shall be mailed to the parties 

who shall have ten (IO) days after service thereof to serve and file 

specific written objections thereto. If no such objections are timely 

filed, the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations may 

be accepted by the district judge and appropriate orders entered 

without further notice. 

4. Obtain the expected release date of inmates filing complaints under 

42 U .S.C. § 1983 to determine when plaintiffs may be available for 

trial. 

(Revisions Effective February I. 1984) 

Appellate Case: 92-1050 Document: 010110307934 Date Filed: 08/31/1992 Page: 9
---. ·. ) 

'--· 

/ 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Case No. 91-M-1990 

Scott Elliott Raymer 

P.O . Box 2017 B.F.C.F. 

Buena Vista, co 81211 

Appellate Case: 92-1050 Document: 010110307934 Date Filed: 08/31/1992 Page: 10