Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07021/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07021-0/pdf.json

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

---

• 

7 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

FI LED 

United States Coun of Appeals 

Tench Cirruir 

AUG 2 3 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

ORAN JONES, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) No. 90-7021 

) (D.C. No. 89-416-C) 

RAY PAGE, ) (E.D. Oklahoma) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, 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. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff Oran Jones appeals dismissal of his pro se 

complaint as frivolous. Plaintiff is an inmate serving a life 

sentence in the John Lilley Correctional Center in Boley, 

Oklahoma. He sued defendant Ray Page, Executive Director of the 

Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board (the Board), and the Board 

* 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: 90-7021 Document: 010110041515 Date Filed: 08/23/1990 Page: 1 
itself, under 42 u.s.c. S 1983 claiming that the Board had refused 

to consider him for preparole conditional supervision (PPCS) 

solely because he was convicted of murder, contrary to the mandate 

of Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 57, S 365. Plaintiff contends that the 

Board's action 

violation of the 

Amendment. The 

infringes a state-created liberty interest in 

due process guarantee of the Fourteenth 

district court found no merit to plaintiff's 

complaint; nor do we. 

Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 57, S 365 provides that when the 

population of the Oklahoma prison system exceeds 95% of capacity, 

the Board must implement a PPCS program until prison population is 

reduced to 921⁄2% of capacity. The statute specifies inmate 

eligibility for the program and directs the Board to consider each 

eligible inmate's entire criminal record and conduct and record 

during confinement in making PPCS decisions. The population 

limits were exceeded, triggering the program, and plaintiff became 

eligible for consideration. Plaintiff was placed on the March 

1989 docket for consideration; a report was prepared extensively 

analyzing plaintiff's background and recommending that plaintiff 

not be granted PPCS; and the Board unanimously voted to deny 

plaintiff PPCS. Subsequently, the Board decided to reconsider 

some PPCS candidates who had been rejected, but not to reconsider 

any PPCS candidates who were serving sentences for murder 

convictions. Therefore, plaintiff was not reconsidered for PPCS 

on this occasion. Nonetheless, plaintiff was again reconsidered 

f or PPCS and again rejected in November 1989. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-7021 Document: 010110041515 Date Filed: 08/23/1990 Page: 2 
• 

• 

Even if Oklahoma created a liberty interest in consideration 

for PPCS for all eligible inmates, see Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 

U. S . 238, 249-50 (1983), plaintiff's interest was not infringed. 

As is evident, plaintiff's claim that convicted murderers are 

automatically excluded from PPCS consideration is meritless. The 

Board fully considered and denied plaintiff PPCS. No statute or 

regulation requires the Board to reconsider inmates rejected for 

PPCS; therefore, the Board's decision not to reconsider convicted 

murderers for PPCS violates no protected liberty interest. 

Plaintiff has filed a supplemental brief on appeal alleging 

that Oklahoma prison officials have taken various actions in 

retaliation for his filing of the instant suit. These 

allegations, if substantial, might provide the basis for a claim 

against some defendants other than those named in this suit. But 

plaintiff must pursue such claims in a separate action. 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-7021 Document: 010110041515 Date Filed: 08/23/1990 Page: 3