Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03089/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03089-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JACK LOSEE, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

and ) 

) 

JAMES J. SULLIVAN, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

JIM BARKLEY, FRANK STRICKLER, ) 

TERRY SMITH, LT . , ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees, ) 

) 

and ) 

) 

STEVEN J. DAVIES, D. BROWNFIELD, ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

APPEALS 

F I . ...J .u 1' , U niled Staten C-0..irv o Ap~· :.1 ~ 

Te!:l.'1 Crcui~ 

JUL O ~ 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECE:E?. 

Clerl: 

No. 92-3089 

(D.C. No . 89-3375-S) 

( D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA, and BRORBY, 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. 

* 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 doctri nes of the law of 

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

Appellate Case: 92-3089 Document: 010110259132 Date Filed: 07/08/1992 Page: 1
This appeal is from an order of the district court denying 

all relief in a case in which plaintiff Losee alleges that his 

civil rights pursuant to 42 u.s.c. § 1983 were violated during 

disciplinary proceedings at Lansing Correctional Facility in 

Lansing, Kansas. The district court found the appeal frivolous 

and refused plaintiff leave to proceed on appeal in forma 

pauperis. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 

affirm. 

Plaintiff's prose complaint alleges that he was denied the 

opportunity to present witnesses and to be represented by counsel 

in a disciplinary proceeding. Plaintiff alleges that some of the 

testimony at the disciplinary proceeding was perjured and that he 

was precluded from presenting witnesses that would refute the 

alleged perjured testimony. Having reviewed the record in this 

case, we agree with the district court that the denial of some of 

the witnesses in this matter was not so critical to the 

proceedings that it constituted a denial of due process. See 

Wolff Y..!.. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). Plaintiff was permitted 

to testify and to confront the reporting official at the hearing. 

The acceptance of the proffer of the testimony at plaintiff's 

hearing was a means by which the competing interests of the 

plaintiff within the institution were constitutionally met. 

Plaintiff also contends that the district court erred in 

finding that he did not lose good time credits as a result of this 

disciplinary action. After reviewing the district court's order, 

we conclude that the district court did not base its decision on 

whether or not plaintiff lost good time credits. Instead, the 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-3089 Document: 010110259132 Date Filed: 07/08/1992 Page: 2
district court applied the appropriate due process requirements to 

the facts of this case. 

We agree that this appeal is frivolous and therefore DENY the 

plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and DISMISS because 

the plaintiff failed to make a rational argument. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith . 

-3-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-3089 Document: 010110259132 Date Filed: 07/08/1992 Page: 3