Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01210/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01210-0/pdf.json

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

---

• ~J..Lo!J>Apsals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

United Tenth Circuit 

AUG 2 0 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

MICHAEL N. MILLIGAN, Clerk 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

TOM VALDEZ, JOE PAOLINO, LOU 

HESSE and GREG BODAKIAN, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 91-1210 

(D.C. No. 90-S-2240) 

(D. Colorado) 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The 

cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Mr. Milligan appeals the dismissal of his 42 u.s.c. § 1983 

action. 

Mr. Milligan is an inmate in a Colorado state prison. Mr. 

Milligan was engaged in a fight with another inmate. As a result, 

* 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: 91-1210 Document: 010110132115 Date Filed: 08/20/1991 Page: 1 
• 

y 

disciplinary charges were filed. These charges were subsequently 

dropped. He lost his prison job in the gym. The prison's reasons 

were that it could not "have inmates working in the gym who have 

conflicts with other inmates." This employment termination action 

was upheld by a hearing officer. Mr. Milligan then went through 

the prison grievance procedure concerning back pay and job 

retention. Mr. Milligan wanted back pay for the days he did not 

work. As this procedure yielded no favorable results, he filed 

this prose S 1983 action seeking back pay, restoration of his job 

at the gym and a satisfactory work rating. 

The district court referred the matter to a magistrate who 

concluded Mr. Milligan failed to allege he had been deprived of a 

federal right and recommended dismissal. The district court, 

after considering Mr. Milligan's objections, reviewed the matter 

de novo and in a thorough and correct four page Order analyzed Mr. 

Milligan's claims and concluded the complaint must be dismissed 

for failure to state a claim. 

Mr. Milligan appeals pro se asserting the district court 

failed to address the issues raised: e.g., he was punished by the 

job loss and this violated his "liberty" interest. Mr. Milligan 

fails to understand that in his complaint he alleged his "firing" 

from his gym job was upheld by a hearing officer. This issue was 

fully addressed by the district court. 

Mr. Milligan also asserts the district court failed to 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-1210 Document: 010110132115 Date Filed: 08/20/1991 Page: 2 
.. 

! 

address his complaint that the other inmate engaged in the fight 

was treated differently. Again, the district court did address 

this issue and concluded that Mr. Milligan had failed to allege a 

violation of his fundamental rights or that he was a member of a 

protected class. 

Finally, Mr. Milligan asserts the district court failed to 

address the issue of his good time credits. Mr. Milligan's 

complaint fails to raise this issue as Mr. Milligan alleged that 

"no penalties were given." He failed to allege he had been denied 

"full earned time" and in the event the complaint can be so read, 

insufficient facts are set forth. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-1210 Document: 010110132115 Date Filed: 08/20/1991 Page: 3