Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01234/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01234-0/pdf.json

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

---

FI LED 

Uoited States C.Ourt of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Cirrnit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

CLOVIS CARL GREEN, JR., ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

WARDEN, FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL ) 

INSTITUTION, Englewood, Colorado, ) 

and L. E. DUBOIS, Regional ) 

Director, Federal Bureau of ) 

Prisons, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

JU 111991 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-1234 

(D.C. No. 90-B-834) 

(District of Colorado) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, 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. 

Clovis Carl Green, Jr., appeals the dismissal of his complaint under 42 u.s.c. § 1983 alleging that the appellees, the 

Warden of the Federal Correction Institution at Englewood, 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-1234 Document: 010110120889 Date Filed: 06/14/1991 Page: 1 
Colorado, and Mr. DuBois, Regional Director of the Federal Bureau 

of Prisons, violated Mr. Green's constitutional rights. 

Mr. Green is currently an inmate at the Federal Correctional 

Institution at Oxford, Wisconsin. He was denied a transfer to 

Englewood because he has federal civil actions pending in 

Wisconsin. Mr. Green argues that the appellees denied the transfer in retaliation for his having filed those actions, thus the 

denial violates his right of access to the courts. He further 

argues that his due process rights have been violated because he 

has a liberty interest, created by Federal Bureau of Prisons 

Policy Statement 5100.2 CN-8 § 4(C), in being incarcerated at 

Englewood. He initially asked that the prison be required to 

transfer him, and claimed monetary damages. 

The United States Magistrate Judge concluded that the complaint failed to state a claim and recommended that it be dismissed. In papers filed after the magistrate judge's recommendation, Mr. Green stated that he no longer wished to be transferred 

to Englewood, but he still wanted monetary damages for denial of 

the transfer. On de novo review, the district court adopted the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissed the complaint. This appeal followed. 

The appellees have filed a motion to supplement the record 

with a copy of Federal Bureau of Prisons Policy Statement 5100.2 

CN-8 § 4(C). The motion is hereby GRANTED. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1234 Document: 010110120889 Date Filed: 06/14/1991 Page: 2 
... 

"The sufficiency of a complaint is a question of law which we 

review de novo." Morgan v. City of Rawlins, 792 F.2d 975, 978 

(10th Cir. 1986). "Dismissal of a case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 12(b)(6) requires the legal determination that the plaintiff 

can prove no set of facts in support of his claim to entitle him 

to relief." Id. 

Mr. Green acknowledges that he has no constitutional right to 

be housed in a specific prison. Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 

245-46 (1983). Mr. Green argues, however, that his transfer was 

denied in retaliation for his litigiousness. See Smith v. 

Maschner, 899 F.2d 940 (10th Cir. 1990) (prison officials may not 

retaliate against inmate because of his exercise of right of 

access to courts). Mr. Smith's bald allegation of retaliatory 

motive is not sufficient to state a claim when the facts set forth 

in his pleadings show an adequate non-retaliatory motive. See 

Cotner v. Hopkins, 795 F.2d 900 (10th Cir. 1986) (dismissal of pro 

se claim appropriate where allegations were conclusory and unsupported by underlying facts). Mr. Smith's complaint states that he 

was retained at Oxford "due to his pending suits." As the 

magistrate judge pointed out, "[T]he plaintiff's witnesses to his 

lawsuits at FCI Oxford are in Wisconsin. The Federal Bureau of 

Prisons will not provide transportation back to Oxford, Wisconsin 

at the trial. He would be hindered, if not prevented from preparing his Oxford cases if he was transferred to FCI Englewood." 

Recommendation of United States Magistrate at 2. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-1234 Document: 010110120889 Date Filed: 06/14/1991 Page: 3 
Mr. Green also claims a liberty interest in the transfer 

which, he claims, was denied without due process of law. Mr. 

Green was reclassified from a Security Level 4 prisoner to a Security Level 3 prisoner. He claims that under prison policies he 

has a right to be housed in a Level 3 prison, such as Englewood, 

rather than in a Level 4 prison, such as Oxford. He refers specifically to Federal Bureau of Prisons Policy Statement 5100.2 CN8 § 4, which states in pertinent part: 

4. MANAGEMENT VARIABLES. Considerations which in addition to security considerations, may significantly 

affect a designation or redesignation decision: 

C. Release Residence Area. It is the policy of 

the Federal Bureau of Prisons to place each inmate 

in an institution that is appropriate in security 

level and is geographically as close to the anticipated release area as is possible and reasonable. 

(Emphasis added). 

Prison regulations do not confer any liberty interest in and 

of themselves. Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 470 (1983). The 

regulation must place "substantive limitations on official discretion." Olim, 462 U.S. at 249. The prison policy cited above contains no mandatory language; it merely provides guidelines to 

prison authorities. See Hewitt, 459 U.S. at 471 (prisons which 

adopt helpful guidelines should not be subject to court scrutiny, 

while prisons which adopt no guidelines are not). Because Mr. 

Green can claim no liberty interest in a transfer to Englewood, he 

can claim no violation of due process. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-1234 Document: 010110120889 Date Filed: 06/14/1991 Page: 4 
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

-5-

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-1234 Document: 010110120889 Date Filed: 06/14/1991 Page: 5