Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07028/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07028-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIL - U 't.ed States Court of AppealF FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT m Tenth Circuit 

MELVIN LEROY MAHLER, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

V. ) 

) 

OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; ) 

JAMES L. SAFFLE, Warden OSP; GARY D. ) 

MAYNARD, Director, Oklahoma Department ) 

of Corrections; DELORES RAMSEY, ) 

Director's Designee; STEPHEN W. KAISER, ) 

Warden, Lexington Correctional Center; ) 

LT. LESIA MISER, Disciplinary Officer, ) 

Lexington Correctional Center; JIMMY ) 

ROWLAND, Disciplinary Officer, ) 

Lexington Correctional Center; TWYLA ) 

SNIDER, Acting Warden, Lexington ) 

Correctional Center, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

DECO 8 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-7028 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-408-S) 

(E.D. Okla.) 

Before MOORE and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and SAFFELS,** Senior 

District Judge. 

**Honorable Dale E. Saffels, Senior District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

* 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: 92-7028 Document: 010110151438 Date Filed: 12/08/1992 Page: 1 
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. 

Melvin Leroy Mahler, an inmate of the state of Oklahoma 

appearing pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

against the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (DOC) and others, 

alleging he was denied due process in the course of prison 

disciplinary proceedings for possession of contraband and battery 

of a staff member that followed an incident on January 9, 1990. 

The proceedings resulted in a loss of good time credits. Mr. 

Mahler appeals from an order of the district court which adopted 

the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation and granted 

defendants' motion for summary judgment on the basis they were 

entitled to qualified immunity . We affirm. 

We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de 

novo, applying the same standard as applied by the district court. 

Abercrombie v . City of Catoosa, 896 F.2d 1228, 1230 (10th Cir. 

1990). Summary judgment should be granted only if "there is no 

genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party 

is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56 (c). 

"The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government 

officials 'generally are shielded from liability for civil damages 

insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established 

statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-7028 Document: 010110151438 Date Filed: 12/08/1992 Page: 2 
would have known.'" Rozek v . Topolnicki, 865 F.2d 1154, 1157 

(10th Cir. 1989) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 

(1982)). Once the defense of qualified immunity has been raised, 

the plaintiff must come forward with facts sufficient to show both 

that the defendants' conduct violated the law and that the law 

alleged to have been violated was "clearly established" at the 

time of the defendants' actions. Pueblo Neighborhood Health 

Ctrs., Inc. v. Losavio, 847 F.2d 642, 645-46 (10th Cir. 1988). 

Mr. Mahler has not met either prong of this burden. 

In his prose brief, Mr. Mahler argues defendants were not 

entitled to qualified immunity for four reasons: (1) defendants 

tape-recorded Mr. Mahler's disciplinary proceedings, which did not 

comply with the "written statement" requirement in Wolff v. 

McDonnell, 418 U. S . 539, 563-67 (1974); (2) defendants delayed in 

providing Mr. Mahler a copy of the disciplinary hearing action 

form, which interfered with his institutional appeal; (3) Mr. 

Mahler was denied due process in his institutional appeal 

following a rehearing on the battery charge; and (4) the district 

court incorrectly applied Local Rule 14(a) to Mr. Mahler's motions 

to supplement the record, which asserted that a DOC policy change 

adopting the requirements of Robinson v. Young, 674 F. Supp. 1356, 

1367 - 69 (W.D. Wis. 1987), applied to his case, and also that Mr. 

Mahler was entitled to use immunity for his testimony during his 

disciplinary proceedings. 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-7028 Document: 010110151438 Date Filed: 12/08/1992 Page: 3 
I 

An inmate facing the loss of good time credits "must receive: 

(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." Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Inst. v. 

Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985) (citing Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563-67). 

Mr. Mahler argues that the district court erred in adopting 

the magistrate's finding, based on Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 

1155-56 (5th Cir.), modified in part and vacated in part on other 

grounds, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042 

(1983), that a tape recording of Mr. Mahler's disciplinary 

proceedings satisfied the Wolff requirement of a written statement 

of evidence relied on. We do not agree. 

This court has held that a written transcript of disciplinary 

proceedings is a more than adequate substitute for a written 

statement of evidence relied on because it contains the required 

information. See Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 946 (10th Cir. 

1990). It seems to us that a tape recording of the proceeding is 

also a more than adequate substitute, for the same reason. We 

therefore find no constitutional inadequacy. Although this court 

had not expressed any opinion on the question at the time of Mr. 

Mahler's disciplinary proceedings, other circuits had, and 

defendants were not bound by the particular interpretation of 

Wolff expressed in the several cases from courts outside of this 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-7028 Document: 010110151438 Date Filed: 12/08/1992 Page: 4 
circuit cited in Mr. Mahler's brief. Mr. Mahler states that DOC 

has no prescribed procedures for making recordings of disciplinary 

proceedings available to inmates or their legal representatives, 

but he does not allege he was denied access to the recordings of 

his hearings. 

II 

Both of Mr. Mahler's hearings were held on January 16, 1990. 

He received the disciplinary hearing action forms on February 28, 

1990, at the facility to which he had been transferred. Mr. 

Mahler was not required to begin counting his time to appeal until 

he received these forms. Supplemental R., Ex. M at 9. While 

waiting for them, however, and even though he was not required to 

proceed, Mr. Mahler filed an institutional appeal with the warden, 

which was denied. After he received the disciplinary hearing 

action forms, he again filed an appeal with the warden, which was 

denied as successive. Mr. Mahler was not entitled to a second 

facility-level appeal, as he argues. Defendants did not interfere 

with Mr. Mahler's right of appeal. 

Mr. Mahler offers no support for his other contention that 

defendants' delay in providing the forms, by itself, was a denial 

of due process. This contention is without merit. 

III 

On institutional appeal, the battery charge was ordered 

reheard because the tape recording of the first proceeding was 

unavailable. After the rehearing, Mr. Mahler was allowed an 

5 

Appellate Case: 92-7028 Document: 010110151438 Date Filed: 12/08/1992 Page: 5 
appeal to the Director of Corrections' designee, but not to the 

warden. Mr. Mahler contends, without support, that he was denied 

his due process right to an institutional appeal following the 

rehearing. This contention is also without merit. DOC policy 

provided that, after a rehearing, an inmate could appeal to the 

warden or director or director's designee. Supplemental R., Ex. M 

at 9. Defendants complied with this policy. 

IV 

On September 10, 1991, Mr. Mahler filed in the district court 

a motion to supplement the record. Attached to the motion was a 

copy of the DOC Compliance Memorandum which adopted the 

interpretation of Wolff expressed in Robinson, 674 F. Supp. at 

1367-69. Among other things, this Memorandum effected a policy 

change to require detailed written findings of evidence relied 

upon in disciplinary hearings. Mr. Mahler asserts that, because 

his motion to supplement the record was unopposed and therefore 

deemed confessed under Local Rule 14(a), he is also entitled to 

the retroactive effect of the DOC Compliance Memorandum such that 

it applied to his disciplinary proceedings. This contention is 

without merit. The district court did not err in its application 

of Local Rule 14(a). 

Finally, Mr. Mahler maintains that at his disciplinary 

hearing on the contraband charge, he was advised of his right to 

remain silent, but warned that adverse inferences might be drawn 

from his silence. In a motion filed September 3, 1991, Mr. Mahler 

asserted he was entitled to "use" immunity for statements he made 

6 

Appellate Case: 92-7028 Document: 010110151438 Date Filed: 12/08/1992 Page: 6 
. . .... 

to defend himself because state felony charges were pending 

against him for the same conduct. Defendants did not respond to 

the motion and the district court declined to rule on it. Mr. 

Mahler argues that under Local Rule 14(a), the motion should have 

been deemed confessed. 

This contention is also without merit. Mr. Mahler cites 

Palmigiano v. Baxter, 487 F.2d 1280 (1st Cir. 1973), vacated, 418 

U.S. 908 (1974), on remand, 510 F.2d 534 (1974), in support of his 

assertion that adverse inferences may not be drawn from an 

inmate's silence at his disciplinary hearing. Palmigiano was 

overturned on this point, however. See Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 

U.S. 308, 320 (1976). Furthermore, Mr. Mahler has made no 

allegation that any statement he made at his hearing was used 

against him. 

We conclude there is no genuine issue of material fact and 

defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Dale E. Saffels 

Senior District Judge 

7 

Appellate Case: 92-7028 Document: 010110151438 Date Filed: 12/08/1992 Page: 7