Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07071/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07071-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT DEC O 4 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk JOE T. BELL, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

vs. 

GARY MAYNARD, Director, Oklahoma 

Department of Corrections; JERRY 

JOHNSON, Deputy Director, Oklahoma 

Department of Corrections; EDWARD 

L. EVANS, Deputy Director, o.c.c.; 

JIM TAYLOR, Population Coordinator 

for the Oklahoma Department of 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Corrections; JESSE SUTTER, Deputy ) 

Warden, M.C.C.; RONNIE HARPER, Case) 

Manager, M.C.C.; DIANE McGEE, Unit) 

Manager, M.c.c.; LENORA JORDAN, ) 

Case Manager/Coordinator, o.c.c.; ) 

LENORA JORDAN, Case Manager/ ) 

Coordinator, o.c.c.; DENNIS CREEL, ) 

Mr., Correctional Counselor, ) 

M.C.C.; GYLNN BOOHER, Unit Manager,) 

o.c.c.; LINDA REEVES, Case Manager,) 

O.C.C.; BARBARA WRIGHT, Case ) 

Manager, o.c.c., ) 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 91-7071 

(CIV 90-430-C) 

(E.D. Okla.) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.** 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for the purposes of establishing the doctrines of law of 

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

36.3. 

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not assist the 

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th 

Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case therefore is ordered submitted without 

oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 91-7071 Document: 010110489113 Date Filed: 12/04/1991 Page: 1
' 

/ Petitioner-appellant Joe T. Bell appeals from the dismissal 

f his 42 U.S. C. § 1.983 complaint against defendant prison • ,;' \ ->i I , , 

I 

officials. After pleading guilty to possession of contraband in a 

penal institution, petitioner should have received six offense 

points under the prison's security classification system. On 

several occasions, prison officials told petitioner that his 

security classification score was lower. When the error was 

discovered, petitioner was precluded from transferring to a 

community treatment facility. During the grievance process, 

prison officials expressed regret for the mixup. R. dqc. 6 at Q. 

Petitioner now seeks injunctive relief in the nature of 

"overriding" the six points, and damages of $1.2 million. 

3 at 5. 

R. doc. , 

We are unaware of any liberty or property interest created by 

state or federal law which attaches to an erroneous security 

classification which is later corrected; hence, petitioner has not 

been deprived of due process. See Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 

(1976). We therefore dismiss the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(d). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989). 

SO ORDERED. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

_,., 

,, 

Appellate Case: 91-7071 Document: 010110489113 Date Filed: 12/04/1991 Page: 2