Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06332/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06332-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F l L .1 . .i i) 

TENTH CIRCUIT United Stat.es Court of Appealf ~.t"'enth Circuit 

FEB 2 2 1993 

KARL WAYNE TIGER, ) ROBERT L. HOECKER 

) Clerk 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) No. 92-6332 

) (D. C. No. CIV-92-407-C) 

JACK COWLEY, ET AL . , ) (W. Dist. of Okla.) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, SETH and BARRETI', Circuit Judges . 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not 

materially assist the determinati on 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. 

Karl Wayne Tiger (Tiger), appearing prose and proceeding in 

forma pauperis, appeals from the district court's Order which 

adopts the Findings and Recommendations of the Unite d Stat es 

Magistrate Judge and dismisses his civil rights petition brought 

pursuant to 42 U. S.C. § 1983 . 

* This Order and Judgme nt has no precedential value and shall not 

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

f o r purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of t he case, 

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

Appellate Case: 92-6332 Document: 010110175842 Date Filed: 02/22/1993 Page: 1 
Tiger, an inmate confined at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, 

sued various officials of the Department of Corrections alleging a 

denial of his right to due process of law during prison 

disciplinary proceedings. Following investigation, this matter 

was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge who entered his 

Findings and Recommendations on September 10, 1992 . The district 

court entered an Order on September 24, 1992, adopting the 

Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations that Tiger failed 

to demonstrate "a deprivation of any clearly established federal 

right which violated 'clearly established statutory or 

constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have 

known.'" 

On appeal from that Order, it is our understanding that Tiger 

contends (1) that the Department of Corrections officials violated 

his Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing to comply with 

Department disciplinary procedures, and (2) that the district 

court erroneously determined thdt the disciplinary action was 

taken pursuant to the disciplinary chairperson's discretion and 

that any error committed under the disciplinary policy constituted 

harmless error. 

We have reviewed the entire record and agree with the 

district court that there has been no deprivation of Tiger's 

constitutional rights and that the disciplinary hearing complied 

with due p r ocess requirements. We AFFIRM the district court ' s 

Order dismissing this civil rights action substantially for the 

reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and 

Recommendations dated September 10, 1992 , and the district court's 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-6332 Document: 010110175842 Date Filed: 02/22/1993 Page: 2 
Order, dated September 24, 1992, copies of which are attached 

hereto and made a part hereof. 

-3-

Entered for the Court: 

James E. Barrett, 

Senior United States 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-6332 Document: 010110175842 Date Filed: 02/22/1993 Page: 3 
Appellate Case: 92-6332 Document: 010110175842 Date Filed: 02/22/1993 Page: 4 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

KARL WAYNE TIGER, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

JACK COWLEY, et al., 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

JUDGMENT 

CIV-92-407-C 

SEP ·· 4 -~9-· ·- ( 

. .,_, ' '-'"'- - L~r(t"-

On September 11, 1992, the United States Magistrate Judge entered findings and 

a recommendation that judgment issue dismissing Plaintiffs complaint. The Court has 

reviewed the file as well as the findings and recommendations and adopts the same. It 

further appears that the Plaintiff has not filed a timely objection or appeal thereto. It is, 

therefore, 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Plaintiffs complaint is hereby 

dismissed. 

Entered this ~ I ✓ day of September, 1992. 

1 ?·· '

, . ·c----.. / /// _Lit------:)( c: : ,' ~r[ t 'C Tl 1. 'l ,:,,C1

/\z= 

ROBIN J. GAUTHRON 

UNITED S'fATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

. .. · ·· - ... r-T - ".I .. ~ • • ..,.., • ·1··) . ....... -.... 

Appellate Case: 92-6332 Document: 010110175842 Date Filed: 02/22/1993 Page: 5 
Appellate Case: 92-6332 Document: 010110175842 Date Filed: 02/22/1993 Page: 6 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUT-11,_ J:' D 

THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA . ~ ~ · 

KARL WAYNE TIGER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JACK COWLEY, et al., 

SF .i 11 1992 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

The Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint in Jonna pauperis and upon preliminary 

review an order was entered directing that an investigation be conducted into the 

allegations of the Complaint and a special report filed in accordance with Martinez v. 

Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978). This report is an expositive analysis of Plaintiffs 

allegations which includes regulations, institutional records and statements of witnesses, 

and it has been incorporated into the brief in support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. 

The Plaintiff has filed a response to the Motion to Dismiss which is treated as a Motion for 

Summary Judgment. In analyzing the issues, the facts have been considered in the light 

most favorable to the Plaintiff including all justifiable inferences. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby. Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). Plaintiff has presented 

arguments and legal theories, but he does not challenge the material facts asserted in the 

Appellate Case: 92-6332 Document: 010110175842 Date Filed: 02/22/1993 Page: 7 
evidentiary submissions. Hall v. Bellman, 935 F.2d 1106, 1113 (10th Cir. 1991). 

Following merit review, the Court finds and concludes as follows: 

Plaintiffs civil rights were allegedly violated on November 8, 1991, when Plaintiff 

was searched during his confinement, specifically his Fourteenth Amendment Rights to Due 

Process when contraband was discovered. The strip search was conducted at 

approximately 11 :00 p.m. on November 8, and Plaintiff initially refused to consent, but 

upon a direct order being issued, he removed his clothes in the shift captain's office. The 

examination of the Plaintiff revealed a piece of toilet paper hanging from the Plaintiffs 

genitals. When an officer reached for the piece of toilet paper, the Plaintiff physically 

attacked the officer and he was subsequently subdued and the officers removed a syringe 

and a needle from the groin area. Plaintiff was permitted to return to his holding cell. 

Plaintiff was examined by the medical staff shortly after midnight and the following report 

was issued: 

"On above date and time I was called by Lt. Coker to check on inmate after 

a use of force. Upon arrival at the holding cell 1/M Tiger stated he was fine 

but when advised I needed to check him anyway he was very cooperative. 

The only injury observed was two abrasions approx. 10 cm. each on the 

inside of his upper left arm. His B/ P was 150/104 and pulse 88. He told 

the Lt. and l he was on no medication or special diet. B/ P was checked 

again at 0120 hrs. and was 120/ 90. 

(Attachment "D", Report of Review of Factual Basis of Claims Asserted in Civil Rights 

Complaint Pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1983). 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-6332 Document: 010110175842 Date Filed: 02/22/1993 Page: 8 
Disciplinary proceedings were conducted upon the filing of an Offense Report for 

battery in accordance with the policy and operations manual for disciplinary procedure 

(OP-090125), effective date June 10, 1990 (Attachment "A", Report of Review of Factual 

Basis of Claims Asserted in Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1983) and 

Defendant was found guilty of the charge. He received punishment of thirty days in 

segregation, $15.00 fine, and loss of good time which was assessed by the disciplinary 

hearing committee. On further review, the Administrative Designee concurred with the 

decision of the disciplinary hearing finding there was sufficient evidence supporting the 

charge of battery and that the punishment was within the allowable sanction for a qass 

A offense. (Attachment "P", Report of Review of Factual Basis of Claims Asserted in Civil 

Rights Complaint pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1983). 

II 

Generally. the Courts have upheld the right of prison officials to conduct random 

strip searches in consideration of the limited expectation of privacy that an inmate has 

which might entitle him to protection of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable 

searches and seizures, including searches of his person. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 

(1984); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520,558 (1979); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 

(10th Cir. 1989). ft is well recognized that some use of force is necessary to control an 

unruly situation in a good faith effort to restore discipline. Brown v. Smith. 813 F.2d 

1187, 1188, (11th Cir. 1987). 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-6332 Document: 010110175842 Date Filed: 02/22/1993 Page: 9 
The Court's review of the offense report and the inmate gnevance procedure 

indicates compliance with the minimum standards of due process. Plaintiffs signature 

confirms he received a copy of the charge and was given an opportunity to prepare a 

defense. Plaintiff was assigned a staff representative and upon being granted the right to 

call witnesses, he refused to do so. The finding of guilt was supported by sufficient 

evidence in the record to support the decision. In Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 

454 (1985), the Supreme Court cited Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-567 (1974) 

and stated the due process standards that must be observed: 

(1) advance written notice of the disciplinary charges; (2) an opportunity, 

when consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals, to call 

witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense; and (3) a 

written statement by the factfinder of the evidence relied on and the reasons 

for the disciplinary action. 

These procedural guarantees were observed and the quantum of evidence 

substantiates the administrative decision. Plaintiff has not shown a deprivation of any 

clearly established federal right which violated "clearly established statutory or 

constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. 

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The test that has been applied is one of the 

objective reasonableness of the Defendants' actions without regard to their intent. 

Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 (1987). 

Accordingly, it is recommended that the Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed and that 

any appeal/objection to recommendation must be filed on or before the 25th day of 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-6332 Document: 010110175842 Date Filed: 02/22/1993 Page: 10 
September, 1992, or the recommendation will become the final order of the Court without 

further notice. This enlargement of the statutory time to file an appeal obviates any need 

to file motions for extension or enlargement of time. 

Entered this 10th day of September, 1992. 

) 

I

.- I \ - RONALD L. HO LAND 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

5 

Appellate Case: 92-6332 Document: 010110175842 Date Filed: 02/22/1993 Page: 11 
Appellate Case: 92-6332 Document: 010110175842 Date Filed: 02/22/1993 Page: 12