Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06138/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06138-0/pdf.json

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

---

,, 

FI LED 

United States Coe.rt of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

APR 11 1991 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

-------------.OBERTL.HOECKER 

JERRY DEAN GRAHAM, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

STEPHEN KAISER, Warden; DELORES 

RAMSEY; J. ROLLAND; LARRY CALLEN; 

JIMMY CARTER; JAMES McKENNA, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) C!erk 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 90-6138 

) (D.C. No. CIV-89-1648-P) 

) ( W. D. Okla. ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.** 

Plaintiff-appellant, a prisoner in the Oklahoma State 

Penitentiary system, filed this action under 42 u.s.c. § 19831 

against the warden and various prison administrative officers 

(defendants-appellees). Proceeding in forma pauperis, he claimed 

* 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 case therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

1 To the extent that plaintiff seeks restoration of his good 

time credits, he must proceed under 28 u.s.c. § 2254(d) with its 

exhaustion requirement. Preiser v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 

(1973); Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 951 (10th Cir. 1990). In 

light of our disposition, however, we do not reach this issue. 

Appellate Case: 90-6138 Document: 010110031909 Date Filed: 04/11/1991 Page: 1 
that he was deprived of constitutionally protected rights. These 

deprivations occurred during prehearing administrative detention, 

investigation, hearing, and posthearing confinement associated 

with a prison disciplinary proceeding. Plaintiff was charged with 

conspiracy to kill another inmate, based upon information supplied 

by a confidential informant. He was found guilty of the charge 

and was given thirty days disciplinary segregation and the loss of 

earned credits. He alleges that defendants did not actually 

conduct an investigation, that the disciplinary officer 

inappropriately placed greater credibility in the confidential 

informant's recitation than on plaintiff's own testimony, that his 

prehearing administrative detention was improper, and that he was 

subjected to double punishment -- first, in administrative 

detention prior to the hearing, and second, in disciplinary 

segregation after the hearing. 

In the district court, defendants moved to dismiss for 

failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), accompanied by a special report on the 

factual basis of the prison proceedings. 2 Rec. vol. I, doc. 15. 

Plaintiff filed a responsive motion in opposition. Id. doc. 16. 

After reviewing these materials, the relevant law, and also 

reviewing the confidential informant's testimony in camera, the 

district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. Graham 

2 We have recognized that district courts may rely upon similar 

reports in determining whether a factual or legal basis for a 

claim exists, although such reports cannot resolve material 

factual disputes. Gee v. Estes, 829 F.2d 1005, 1007 (10th Cir. 

1987): Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317, 318-19 (10th Cir. 1987). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6138 Document: 010110031909 Date Filed: 04/11/1991 Page: 2 
I 

v. Kaiser, No. CIV-89-1648-P, unpub. memo. QR• (W.D. Okla. Mar. 

30, 1990). Plaintiff appeals, repeating the arguments submitted 

to the district court. 

It is not entirely clear whether the district court dismissed 

plaintiff's claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(d), or some combination thereof. We are satisfied, 

however, that the district court, under 28 u.s.c. § 1915(d), 

properly dismissed plaintiff's legal claim about administrative 

confinement before the disciplinary hearing and his factual claim 

about a lack of investigation. Regarding plaintiff's claim that 

the disciplinary officer inappropriately weighed the informant's 

evidence, the district court correctly dismissed the claim under 

Rule 12 ( b) ( 6 ) . 

Under 28 u.s.c. § 1915(d) a court may dismiss "a claim on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory," such as a "claim[] of 

infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist." 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Plaintiff's 

confinement before his disciplinary hearing is properly 

characterized as administrative, not disciplinary, and no statute 

or regulation has been suggested which would counsel greater 

procedural protection. See Hewit v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 468 

(1983); Bailey v. Shillinger, 828 F.2d 651, 652 (10th Cir. 1987). 

An independent due process interest does not exist in these 

circumstances; the district court properly dismissed this claim 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6138 Document: 010110031909 Date Filed: 04/11/1991 Page: 3 
Section 1915(d) also allows a court "the unusual power to 

pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss 

those claims whose factual allegations are clearly baseless," such 

as "claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios." 

Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28; McKinney v. Oklahoma, 925 F.2d 363, 

__ , (10th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff's claim concerning a lack of 

investigation is baseless, and is belied by the record including 

the plaintiff's responsive pleading. See Graham, unpub. memo.~-

at 2-3 (discussing procedure attendant to this disciplinary 

action). 

Plaintiff has challenged the hearing officer's reliance on 

the confidential informant's statement. See Brown v. Smith, 828 

F.2d 1493, 1495 (10th Cir. 1987). Considering the allegations 

concerning the informant's evidence as pled, see Conley v. Gibson, 

355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957), we conclude that "some evidentiary 

basis" supports the decision of the hearing officer to rely upon 

the informant. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 

(1985); Benny v. O'Brien, 736 F. Supp. 242, 245 (D. Kan. 1990). 

Unlike the situation in Brown, this disciplinary action is not 

without support. This claim may be resolved under Rule 12(b)(6), 

for the determination of "some evidentiary basis" is a legal 

inquiry which "does not require examination of the entire record, 

independent assessment of the credibility of witnesses, or 

weighing of the evidence." Hill, 472 U.S. at 455. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-6138 Document: 010110031909 Date Filed: 04/11/1991 Page: 4