Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06303/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06303-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gary Maynard
Appellee
James Naum
Appellant
Oklahoma Board of Corrections
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JAMES NAUM, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

vs. No. 89-6303 

FI LED 

U!lited States Court of Appeals 

Tt>oth Cfrr,,it 

APR 2 4 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

OKLAHOMA BOARD OF 

CORRECTIONS, and GARY 

MAYNARD, Director, Oklahoma 

Department of Corrections, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

(D.C. No. Civ-89-1433-A) 

(W. D. Okla.) 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

f d . . d ** Be ore LOGAN, SEYMOUR an BALDOCK, Circuit Ju ges • 

Plaintiff-appellant, James Naum, is an inmate in the custody 

of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. He instituted this 

action, prose, under 42 U.S.C. S 1983 in the Oklahoma federal 

district court challenging prison disciplinary proceedings against 

him as violative of his constitutional rights. Citing Neitzke v. 

* 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. 

** 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 cause therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 89-6303 Document: 01019972084 Date Filed: 04/24/1990 Page: 1 
Wi lliams, 109 S. Ct. 1827 (1989), the district court held that 

Naum could make no argument in law or fact to support his claims, 

and thus dismissed the complaint under 28 u.s.c. § 1915(d). 

We have reviewed Naum's appellate brief as well as the record 

on appeal. We agree with the district court that this action is 

meritless for substantially the reasons set forth in its order of 

dismissal, a copy of which is attached hereto. Accordingly, the 

appeal is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). 

APPEAL DISMISSED. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6303 Document: 01019972084 Date Filed: 04/24/1990 Page: 2 
. -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

JAMES NAUM, 

Plaintiff 

vs. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. CIV-89-1433-A 

OKLAHOMA BOARD OF CORRECTIONS, 

GARY MAYNARD, Director, 

Defendants 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Plaintiff, appearing RI:Q se and in fonna pauperis, has filed 

his civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 u.s.c. §1983, wherein he 

challenges the policy and procedure used in a disciplinary 

proceeding against him at Jess Dunn Correctional Center (JDCC) in 

Taft, Oklahoma. An earlier lawsuit, identical to the instant 

complaint except for its inclusion of the warden of JDCC as a 

defendant, was dismissed for lack of venue. Naum v. State of 

Oklahoma, CIV-89-1234-A. Rather than filing his action in the 

Eastern District, where venue is proper, plaintiff has simply 

omitted the warden of the institution as a party defendant and sues 

the Oklahoma Board of Corrections and Gary Maynard, its director, 

alleging that the policies of the Oklahoma Board of Corrections and 

the warden's implementation of these policies are in violation of 

the United States Constitution. Plaintiff seeks damages, actual 

and punitive, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief which 

would have the effect of returning the earned credits taken as a 

Appellate Case: 89-6303 Document: 01019972084 Date Filed: 04/24/1990 Page: 3 
. , _ 

result of the disciplinary action against him. Consistent with 

Phillips v. Carey. 638 F.2d 207 (10th Cir. 1981) (per curiam), 

cert. denied, 450 U.S. 985 (1981), the Court has undertaken a 

preliminary review of this in forma pauperis complaint to determine 

if it is frivolous or otherwise without merit. 

The Board of Corrections is immune under the Eleventh 

Amendment to the United States Constitution from liability for 

damages in an action brought against it. Griess v. State of 

Colorado, 841 F.2d 1042, 1044 (10th Cir. 1988) (per curiam); Meade 

v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1525 (10th Cir. 1988). The Director of 

the Board of Corrections, sued only in his official capacity, is 

likewise immune. Rozek v. Topolnicki, 865 F.2d 1154 (10th Cir. 

1989); Griess v. state of Colorado, 841 F.2d at 1045; Meade v. 

Grubbs, 841 F.2d at 1525-1526. In any event, Maynard, the Director 

of the Department of Corrections, is not a proper party defendant 

where he did not personally participate in the disciplinary 

hearing,TM Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, 1262-1263 (10th Cir. 

1976), and is not liable under respondeat superior for 

constitutional violations of his subordinates. Polk County v. 

Dodson, 454 u.s. 312, 325 (1981); Monell v. New York city Dept. of 

Social Serys,, 436 u.s. 658, 691-695 (1978). Plaintiff nowhere 

alleges Maynard's participation in the acts complained of, nor can 

any facts alleged by plaintiff be construed to state a cause of 

action, under the above standard, against Maynard. Finally, 

insofar as plaintiff seeks injunctive or declaratory relief, his 

action presents a challenge to the fact or duration of his 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-6303 Document: 01019972084 Date Filed: 04/24/1990 Page: 4 
..; 

confinement and thus is only cognizable as a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 u.s. 475 (1973). As 

plaintiff has not exhausted his state remedies, the Court will not 

entertain any request for habeas corpus relief. 28 u.s.c. §2254(b) 

and (c); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. at 489-494. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court holds that plaintiff can 

make no argument on the law or facts in support of his claim for 

relief and dismissal is therefore appropriate under 28 u.s.c. 

§1915(d). Neitzke v. Williams, __ U.S. __ , 109 s.ct. 1827 

(1989). Accordingly, plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this /~ day of August, 1989. 

wAYNi'f. ALLEY l 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

;.;{J-J9 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-6303 Document: 01019972084 Date Filed: 04/24/1990 Page: 5