Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03197/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03197-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JOHN L. MCCARTHY, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 91-3197 

(D.C. No. 90-CV-3351) 

(D. Kansas) 

WARDEN HENMAN, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

FILED 

Unit.ed State!! Court of Appeals Tenth circuit 

OCT O 41991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

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 cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This matter is before us on petitioner's application for a 

certificate of probable cause, and motion for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, in order that petitioner might appeal the district 

court's dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We 

deny both the application and the motion. 

Petitioner is currently in the United States Penitentiary at 

Leavenworth, Kansas, serving a Connecticut State sentence. He 

* 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: 91-3197 Document: 010110090758 Date Filed: 10/04/1991 Page: 1 
.. 

complains he was denied his constitutional rights in a 

disciplinary action taken against him after an incident at Lompoc, 

California, on August 27, 1989. On that day, petitioner was 

written up for refusing to obey an order from staff, and for 

encouraging a group demonstration. Specifically, staff ordered 

all inmates not to throw their trays from their cells after 

completing meals. At 3:50 p.m. on August 27, 1989, the guard on 

duty observed petitioner "pitch his tray from his cell and attempt 

to have other inmates act in concert by stating 'fuck this, lets 

trash the whole place.'" Thereafter, at 5:15 p.m. on the same 

day, corrections officers searched petitioner's cell. They 

discovered human feces rolled up between the pages of a Playboy 

Magazine. Petitioner was also written up for that incident, and 

discipline was imposed. That discipline is not contested in the 

current proceeding. 

In his petition, petitioner alleges as his sole ground, that 

"I was denied afforded [sic] constitutional due process at a 

prison disciplinery [sic] hearing." As supporting authority, he 

cites numerous procedural regulations regarding the conduct of 

disciplinary proceedings. Neither the district court nor counsel 

for the government have attempted any analysis with respect to the 

propriety of petitioner's action in the form of a habeas 

proceeding. The petition is defective on its face in that regard. 

The petition does not allege that petitioner is in custody in 

violation of the constitution or laws of the United States, 28 

u.s.c. § 2254(a), or that he is seeking relief which will entitle 

him to immediate release or speedier release from imprisonment. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-3197 Document: 010110090758 Date Filed: 10/04/1991 Page: 2 
Freiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973). Clearly petitioner is 

not presently in custody for the sanction of 30 days disciplinary 

segregation which was recommended for the infraction in question, 

and the complaint contains no allegation that petitioner's date of 

release is directly dependent upon the disciplinary finding in 

this case. Petitioner's general comment on the subject in a 

pleading filed subsequent to the petition is entirely 

insufficient. Furthermore, petitioner's pleadings filed 

subsequent to his petition confuse concepts found in civil rights 

actions with proceedings applicable to habeas relief. 

In any event, by whatever description, petitioner's action 

states no arguable claim for relief. He attacks the mechanics of 

his disciplinary proceedings claiming that he was never allowed to 

appear at a disciplinary hearing, never signed a waiver of his 

appearance (as alleged by corrections officials), was never 

advised of his rights, was not allowed to call witnesses, was not 

allowed to have his named staff representative present, and was 

not given a summary of the findings and evidence against him. The 

government agrees that petitioner was entitled to notice of the 

charges against him, a right to call witnesses and present 

evidence in defense, the aid of the staff member in presenting a 

defense, and a written statement of reasons relied upon by the 

tribunal in imposing discipline against him. See, Wolff v. 

McDonnell, 418 U.S. 538 (1974). It claims that all those things 

were scrupulously provided. In support of its contentions, the 

government has included in the record documentation regarding the 

disciplinary proceeding in question which occurred on several 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-3197 Document: 010110090758 Date Filed: 10/04/1991 Page: 3 
levels, including an administrative appeal and determination by 

the central administrative office. Petitioner claims his 

signature on a waiver of appearance was forged, that statements by 

correctional officers as to a waiver of appearance at a subsequent 

hearing are lies and, generally, that "all the information 

contained therein [the B-P-10] is lies and fabrication." By his 

allegations petitioner attempts to set up a conflict in the facts 

which entitle him to an evidentiary hearing. 

From our review of the record we are satisfied that 

petitioner received constitutional due process with respect to his 

discipline in this case, and that there is no conflict in the 

basic facts sufficient to justify a hearing. With respect to the 

notice of charges against him, petitioner makes no claim that he 

did not receive the incident report, described above, on August 

27, 1989. That report shows on its face that it was delivered to 

petitioner, and it described the conduct for which he was later 

disciplined, as well as specifically stating the charge against 

him as "refusing to obey an order from staff, and encouraging a 

group demonstration." Petitioner also does not deny that hearings 

were in fact held on August 30 and September 13, 1989. He simply 

maintains that the authorities are lying when they say he refused 

to participate. Petitioner's unsupported statements that one 

corrections officer on one date (August 30), and two different 

correctional officers on another date (September 13), all told 

identical lies about his refusal to appear at disciplinary 

hearings on this matter, are insufficient to justify an 

evidentiary hearing. Further, petitioner does not contest the 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-3197 Document: 010110090758 Date Filed: 10/04/1991 Page: 4 
• 

fact that he was accorded a full administrative appeal in which he 

made all of the arguments he raises now, or the fact that the 

appeals officer found his contentions to be without merit after 

examining each of them. The file also includes the written 

statement of reasons provided by the hearing tribunal with respect 

to the discipline imposed, and it is impossible not to conclude 

from reading petitioner's administrative appeal, that petitioner 

had the statement of reasons and other documents in his 

possession. Finally, petitioner asserts he was unable to call 

witnesses, but makes no attempt to identify anyone he wished to 

call, what efforts he made at any time in the administrative 

process to inform officials in that regard, or to suggest what any 

such witness would say. In fact, petitioner does not even attempt 

to demonstrate factual innocence. 

In short, the file conclusively shows on its face that 

petitioner was accorded his basic constitutional safeguards with 

respect to the discipline imposed for the incident in question. 

Because we find petitioner has neither raised a reasoned argument 

on the law and facts, Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 

(1962), nor demonstrated that the issues raised are debatable 

among jurists, Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983), we deny 

petitioner's application for a certificate of probable cause, and 

his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The appeal is DISMISSED. 

All pending motions are DENIED. The mandate shall issue 

forthwith. 

-5-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-3197 Document: 010110090758 Date Filed: 10/04/1991 Page: 5