Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01436/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01436-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

SHANE C. MCDERMOTT, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

MAYO 8 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) 

) 

FRANK o. GUNTER, D.o.c., Executive) 

Director; LOU HESSE, CCF Superin- ) 

tendent, ) 

No. 91-1436 

(D.C. No. 91-B-1489) 

(D. Colorado) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The 

cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Mr. McDermott, a state inmate, filed a pro se 42 u.s.c. 

S 1983 action alleging he was denied due process when placed in 

* 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: 91-1436 Document: 010110247641 Date Filed: 05/08/1992 Page: 1
administrative segregation and reclassified to a higher security 

facility . After referring the matter to the Magistrate Judge and 

considering a Martinez report, the district court dismissed Mr . 

McDermott's complaint. Mr. McDermott appeals pro se and we 

affirm. 

The Martinez report ordered by the Magistrate Judge evidenced 

that prison officials had discovered an escape plan involving Mr. 

McDermott and two other inmates . The report also evidenced that 

after such discovery, Mr. McDermott was removed from the general 

prison population, given an Administrative Segregation hearing and 

then assigned a Maximum Administrative Segregation classification. 

None of these actions affected Mr . McDermott's length of sentence 

yet to be served. 

Mr. McDermott responded to the Martinez report by stating the 

Defendants were delinquent in providing his Notice for 

Administrative Segregation. He also asserted his change in status 

was due to the report of a confidential informant . Mr. McDermott 

"very much doubts the reliability of [that] informant." Mr. 

McDermott also questioned the thoroughness of the investigative 

report mentioned in the Martinez report. For example , he pointed 

out that the investigator failed to obtain the registration number 

of the aircraft referred to in the investigative report. Mr. 

McDermott also asserted he was unfairly denied an inmate 

representative to utilize during the prison hearing concerning his 

change in classification. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-1436 Document: 010110247641 Date Filed: 05/08/1992 Page: 2
The Magistrate Judge, in his recommendation, concluded (1) 

Mr. McDermott's due process rights were not violated as he 

received notice and a hearing; (2) Mr. McDermott had no 

protectable interest in being given a certain prison 

classification; (3) Mr. McDermott demonstrated no equal protection 

violation as his pertinent allegations were vague and conclusory; 

(4) the complaint alleged no personal participation by the 

Defendants; and (5) the Eleventh Amendment prohibited Mr. 

McDermott's suit as Defendants were sued only in their official 

capacity. Consequently, the magistrate judge recommended Mr. 

McDermott's complaint be dismissed with prejudice. In response, 

Mr. McDermott criticized each of the Magistrate Judge's 

conclusions. 

Although he admitted receiving notice, he stressed he did not 

receive the notice within the time limits specified by the prison 

regulations. Mr. McDermott failed, however, to specify how this 

delay in any way prejudiced his defense. 

The district court adopted the Report and Recommendations and 

dismissed the complaint. 

Mr. McDermott appeals pro se asserting: (1) He did not 

receive the notice for administrative segregation within the one 

working day allowed by the prison regulations; (2) a hearing was 

not held within three working days to determine the need for 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-1436 Document: 010110247641 Date Filed: 05/08/1992 Page: 3
continued placement; (3) the confidential informant's testimony 

should not have been allowed in the administrative segregation 

hearing; (4) the credibility of the confidential informant should 

have been decided in Mr. McDermott's favor; (5) no proof existed 

to show an aircraft was going to be used in Mr. McDermott's 

planned escape; and (6) he was denied his right to representation 

by an inmate representative at his administrative segregation 

hearing. 

Even though no good time credits were taken, Mr. McDermott 

was entitled to a segregation hearing. Dzana v. Foti, 829 F.2d 

558, 561 (5th Cir. 1987). He was given a hearing, evidence was 

admitted, and the confidential informant's evidence was 

corroborated. The fact that notice may have been late under 

prison regulations does not rise to constitutional significance in 

the absence of prejudice. 

Classification decisions are not for the federal courts, Olim 

v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983); therefore we do not 

address the merits of Mr. McDermott's ultimate reclassification. 

Likewise, the balance of Mr. McDermott's assigned errors warrant 

little discussion. Prison officials made the required showing to 

utilize the confidential informant's evidence and it was 

corroborated. Federal courts do not make credibility 

determinations. Finally, Mr. McDermott had no constitutional 

right to inmate representation. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-1436 Document: 010110247641 Date Filed: 05/08/1992 Page: 4
To succeed in maintaining a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, a state 

inmate must show rights guaranteed to him by the United States 

Constitution or by federal law have been violated. Mr. McDermott 

has failed to make the necessary showing. 

The judgement of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-5-

Appellate Case: 91-1436 Document: 010110247641 Date Filed: 05/08/1992 Page: 5