Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06414/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06414-0/pdf.json

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

---

; 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ROY LAWRENCE, 

Petitioner-Appellee, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FILED 

Uoited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

APR 3 0 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 89-6414 

T.C. MARTIN, Warden, 

Respondent-Appellant. 

) (D.C. No. CIV-89-1835-T) 

) ( W. D. Ok la. ) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, ANDERSON, and TACHA, 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. 

Roy Lawrence appeals the district court's order dismissing 

his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Lawrence contends that 

the district court erred by holding Lawrence's constitutional 

rights were not violated by defendant Warden Martin's ordering of 

a rehearing of a Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) hearing during 

the pendency of an earlier habeas action. We affirm. 

* 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: 89-6414 Document: 01019967223 Date Filed: 04/30/1990 Page: 1 
/ 

Lawrence received a misconduct report in June, 1988, for 

engaging in or encouraging a group demonstration in the U.S. 

Prison, Atlanta. Lawrence ultimately filed a habeas petition 

relating to the misconduct report, No. CIV-89-672-T. During the 

pendency of that petition, Martin ordered a rehearing on the 

incident report. Lawrence refused to respond to the rehearing 

because of the pendency of the court case, and the decision on 

rehearing upheld the original DHO decision. The district court 

found that rehearing was the appropriate remedy, even assuming a 

due process violation had occurred, and held that since the 

rehearing had already been held, Lawrence was not entitled to any 

further remedy. The court then dismissed the petition as moot. 

The rehearing ordered by Warden Martin was then held. 

Lawrence declined to present evidence. The rehearing in essence 

reached the same result as the first hearing. Lawrence 

subsequently exhausted his administrative remedies in the Bureau 

of Prisons and filed a second petition for habeas corpus. In his 

second petition, Lawrence seeks to raise the four procedural 

irregularities raised in the first petition concerning the first 

disciplinary hearing. He also challenges the authority of the 

Warden to order a rehearing and the sufficiency of the evidence 

supporting the disciplinary action. 

The proper remedy for the purported errors in the 

disciplinary procedures at the time of the first DHO hearing is 

remand for a hearing that "comports with the federal regulations 

governing such proceedings." Brown~ Smith, 828 F.2d 1493, 1496 

(10th Cir. 1987) (per curiam). This was the remedy ordered by 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-6414 Document: 01019967223 Date Filed: 04/30/1990 Page: 2 
Warden Martin during the pendency of the first habeas action. 

Martin provided Lawrence with the relief he sought from the 

district court. As such, the habeas action was moot because there 

was no dispute over Lawrence's entitlement to a new hearing. The 

d i strict court did not err in dismissing Lawrence's procedural 

claims from the first hearing. 

Lawrence's next claim is that the Warden lacked authority to 

order a rehearing after a federal habeas action has commenced. 

This claim is barred; the order dismissing the first habeas action 

specifically considered the Warden's authority to unilaterally 

order such relief. Lawrence did not appeal from that 

determination. The distri ct court did not err in addressing the 

Warden's authority. 

Lawrence's final clai m is that there is insufficient evidence 

to support the disciplinary action. We have reviewed the record 

a nd find no error. The record is adequate to support the 

disciplinary panel's finding. 

The judgment of the d i strict court is AFFIRMED. 

shall iss ue forthwith. 

Th e mandate 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

3 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-6414 Document: 01019967223 Date Filed: 04/30/1990 Page: 3