Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03090/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03090-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILED 

United States Court ot A~lo 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JAMES D. CAMPBELL, ) 

AUG 2 2 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

G.L. 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

HERMAN, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Nos. 91-3090 & 91-3092 

(D.C. Nos. 90-CV-3404 & 

90-CV-3372) 

(D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate records, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cases are therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Petitioner-appellant James Campbell appeals two separate 

district court orders denying his petitions for writ of habeas 

corpus. On appeal, Campbell argues his first and eighth amendment 

rights were violated when prison officials restricted his 

visitation rights for five years based on a positive urinalysis 

test for drug use. He also argues his fifth amendment procedural 

* 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: 91-3090 Document: 010110132139 Date Filed: 08/22/1991 Page: 1 
due process rights were violated at the disciplinary hearing and 

he was entitled to a separate hearing when his visitation 

privileges were revoked. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§1291 and affirm. 

Campbell contends he was denied procedural due process in 

connection with the hearing because he received a "false" notice 

of the charges, the hearing officer handled the hearing in a 

biased manner, the incident report upon which the decision was 

based contained misstatements, he was denied an opportunity to 

present a key witness, and legal assistance from prison staff was 

inadequate. In Wolf Y.!.. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564-66 (1974), 

the Supreme Court held that minimum requirements of procedural due 

process are satisfied when prison officials provide: (1) written 

notice of charges at least twenty-four hours before a hearing, (2) 

a written statement of factfinders about evidence relied upon and 

reasons for any disciplinary action taken, and (3) an opportunity 

to call witnesses and present documentary evidence when doing so 

will not jeopardize institutional or correctional goals. Inmates 

do not have a right to retained or appointed counsel in 

disciplinary proceedings. Id. at 570. 

Here, the record shows minimal procedural due process 

requirements were met. Campbell admits he received notice of the 

charges. The written statement of the hearing officer explained 

the specific evidence relied on to support a guilty finding 

included the positive lab report, the urine surveillance report 

linking the positive test to Campbell, and a memo from the prison 

pharmacist stating Campbell was not issued any medication that 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-3090 Document: 010110132139 Date Filed: 08/22/1991 Page: 2 
would result in a positive test. The record shows that possible 

typographical errors in the surveillance report did not affect the 

credibility of the evidence showing the positive urine sample came 

from Campbell. Additionally, the record shows Campbell elected to 

proceed with the hearing despite the absence of a witness, Officer 

Earl Haling, who was hospitalized. There is no evidence 

supporting Campbell's assertion the hearing officer conducted the 

hearing in a biased manner. Further, his claims of ineffective 

assistance are without merit because minimum due process does not 

require assistance of counsel in disciplinary hearings. 

Campbell argues that his visitation privileges cannot be 

taken away without a separate hearing because prison regulations 

create a constitutional liberty interest in visitation. We 

disagree. In Kentucky Dept. of Corrections Y.!.. Thompson, 490 U.S. 

454, 461-63 (1989), the Supreme Court explained that state laws or 

regulations may create enforceable liberty interests in prison 

privileges. A liberty interest in visitation is created only when 

regulations contain explicit mandatory language relating to 

specific limitations on official discretion. Id. at 462-63. 

Unless visitation regulations contain such mandatory language, no 

liberty interest has been created. See id. 

Here, the regulations specifically allow loss of visitation 

privileges for possession or use of any narcotics or drugs not 

prescribed by medical staff. In discussing loss of privileges, 

the regulations state that officials "may direct that an inmate 

forgo specific privileges for a specified period of time." 

(Emphasis added.) Beyond this discretionary authority regarding 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-3090 Document: 010110132139 Date Filed: 08/22/1991 Page: 3 
loss of privileges, the regulations and policies included in the 

record contain no mandatory language limiting prison officials' 

discretion to restrict visitation privileges. Thus the 

regulations do not create a liberty interest in visitation. The 

fact the regulations describe visitation as a "right" does not 

mean a liberty interest is created when the regulations also 

provide official discretion to restrict visitation. Further, 

provisions authorizing restriction of a particular privilege for 

an abuse of that privilege do not contradict the more general 

discretionary authority to restrict a privilege for other 

violations. 

Campbell contends the penalty he received violates the eighth 

amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. A 

punishment that is grossly disproportionate to an offense may 

violate the eighth amendment's protection against cruel and 

unusual punishment. See Rummel Y...!.. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 271-74 

(1980). Here, the record shows Campbell has been found guilty of 

drug use five times in the past two years. We cannot say that a 

five year restriction on visitation privileges is grossly 

disproportionate to Campbell's repeated use and possession of 

narcotics while in prison custody. 

Campbell also contends imposition of the visitation penalty 

violates his first amendment right of association. As the Supreme 

Court has pointed out, challenges to prison restrictions that 

allegedly inhibit first amendment rights are analyzed in terms of 

the legitimate penological objectives of a corrections system to 

whose custody the prisoner has been committed in accordance with 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-3090 Document: 010110132139 Date Filed: 08/22/1991 Page: 4 
due process of law. Pell~ Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822 (1974). 

Legitimate penological objectives include crime deterrence, 

punishment, protection, internal security, and rehabilitation. 

Id. at 822-23. Because a convicted criminal has no absolute 

constitutional right to visitation, such privileges are subject to 

the discretion of prison authorities provided that the restriction 

of visitation privileges meets some legitimate penological 

objective. Evans~ Johnson, 808 F.2d 1427, 1428 (11th Cir. 

1987). 

Here, Campbell's visitation privileges were revoked when he 

tested positive for drug use. The record shows that Campbell had 

not been prescribed drugs by the prison pharmacist. The hearing 

officer's report states that lesser penalties restricting 

visitation privileges had been ineffective to deter Campbell's 

drug use in prison. Five years' loss of visitation privileges, 

the report states, is designed to serve the purposes of punishment 

and deterrence. Since the penalty serves legitimate penological 

goals, we cannot say the defendant abused his discretion. 

Because the petitioner has advanced a reasoned argument on 

the law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal, see 

Coppedge~ United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962), we GRANT in forma 

pauperis and AFFIRM. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-5-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-3090 Document: 010110132139 Date Filed: 08/22/1991 Page: 5