Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01274/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01274-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ... J8J~~ippeah Um~ Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

CHARLES S. SHARROCK, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

FRANK GUNTER, Executive Director, ) 

of the Colorado Department of Cor- ) 

rections; STANLEY POWELL, OFFICER ) 

FOSHEE, OFFICER MCKIBBON, OFFICER ) 

AHART, OFFICER RENFROW, OFFICER ) 

BRADEN, OFFICER BODAKIAN, OFFICER ) 

GODT, OFFICER SOLANO, OFFICER ) 

GENTILE, OFFICER ZULIANO, OFFICER ) 

NIX, OFFICER HERBERT, OFFICER ) 

COOPER, OFFICER CARROLL, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

APR 13 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-1274 

(D.C. No. 91-Z-744) 

(D. Colorado) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate records, 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 case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

* This order a nd 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: 92-1274 Document: 010110200897 Date Filed: 04/13/1993 Page: 1 
Plaintiff alleges denial of due process in his placement and 

classification within the prison, implementation of unwritten 

prison policies against him, deprivation of his personal property, 

and the withholding and censoring of mail in violation of his free 

exercise of religion. On appeal, he argues that the dismissal of 

his complaint violated his due process rights because the magistrate judge would not allow him to supplement the record at an 

evidentiary hearing, and that the dismissal also denied him equal 

protection. 

Plaintiff was already incarcerated at the Centennial Correctional Facility (CCF) in Canon City, Colorado, when an Inmate 

Incentive Program (IIP) became effective December 1, 1990. He was 

in maximum administrative segregation at that time, and he was 

placed in Level 1 of the IIP, the most restrictive level of confinement. In the following months, he progressed to Level 3, was 

returned to Level 1, and then progressed a second time to Level 2. 

At that time, plaintiff requested to be returned to Level 1, where 

he apparently remains at this time. Doc . 29 . 

We agree with the district court that plaintiff's complaint 

asserting that his movements within the levels of administrative 

segregation require a formal hearing fails to state a claim for 

relief cognizable under 42 U.S .C. § 1983 . We agree with the analyses contained in the magistrate judges' recommendations and 

adopted by the district court. An inmate may be classified within 

a prison facility for purposes of determining the conditions of 

incarceration without a hearing. Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 

468 (1983 ) ( 11 [T]he transfer of an inmate to less amenable and more 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-1274 Document: 010110200897 Date Filed: 04/13/1993 Page: 2 
restrictive quarters for nonpunitive reasons is well within the 

terms of confinement ordinarily contemplated by a prison sentence 11 

and d oes not implicate due process. ) ; Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 

215, 225 ( 1976 ) (Due Process Clause does not 11 protect a duly convicted prisoner against transfer from one institution to another. 11 ) • 

Plaintiff's remaining allegations concerning denial of due 

process are conclusory and lack the specificity required to pursue 

a§ 1983 suit. See Cotner v. Hopkins, 795 F.2d 900, 902 (10th 

Cir. 1986 ). Plaintiff's vague assertions that an unwritten policy 

was implemented against him fail to identify any staff members who 

allegedly singled him out for mistreatment. Furthermore, because 

his allegation that he was deprived of personal property without 

due process is cognizable under Colorado law, Colo . Rev. Stat. 

§ 24-10-106(1) (b), federal due process is not implicated. Hudson 

v . Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533-35 (1984); Durre v. Dempsey. 869 F.2d 

543, 546 (10th Cir. 1989). 

Plaintiff's final allegations concern interference with his 

free exercise of religion in the withholding and censoring of religious mail. The magistrate judge ordered a Martinez report, 

which detailed CCF procedures for handling personal as well as 

legal mail. Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 {10th Cir. 1978 ) ; 

Doc. 29. Plaintiff's use of the mail system at CCF was at issue 

in the evidentiary hearing ordered by the magistrate j udge. Docs. 

40, 45. The government apparently presented evidence at that 

h earing supporting the finding that plaintiff's mail was neither 

being censored nor withheld and that any misdirection o f his mail 

-3-

--- - - - - - 

Appellate Case: 92-1274 Document: 010110200897 Date Filed: 04/13/1993 Page: 3 
was not an intentional deprivation of his property .

1 Although 

plaintiff filed objections to the Martinez report and the magistrate judge's recommendations, the district court was satisfied 

that those recommendations were correct. Plaintiff has failed to 

state a c laim for interference with his free exercise of religion 

or with his mail. His allegations are conclusory as to all defendants except Powell. As to Powell, the record supports the district court's finding as to a lack of evidence of intentional deprivation. Therefore, plaintiff's claims in this regard are not 

actionable. Furthermore plaintiff's pleadings, even if accepted 

as true, do not demonstrate more than a de minimis interference 

with plaintiff's mail. This de minimis imposition is not of constitutional significance. Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 674 

(1977). 

We agree with the district court that plaintiff's complaint 

fails to state a claim for relief cognizable under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 . We AFFIRM the district court's dismissal. Plaintiff's 

motion to remand is denied as moot. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

1 The district judge partially granted plaintiff the right to 

appeal in forma pauperis. That order required plaintiff to pay 

the cost of any transcript, which plaintiff failed to do. Therefore, we do not have the transcript of the 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636 (b ) (1) (B) hearing available for review. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-1274 Document: 010110200897 Date Filed: 04/13/1993 Page: 4