Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03369/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03369-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Squire
Appellant
Warden, U.S.P. Leavenworth
Appellee

Document Text:

FIL ~ D 

United States Court of Ap~ 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tcnt.'1 Cireui~ • 

TENTH CIRCUIT APR 1 o 1992 

JOHN SQUIRE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

WARDEN, U.S.P. LEAVENWORTH, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerl.: · 

No. 91-3369 

(D.C. No. 90-CV-3074) 

(D. Kansas) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and BALDOCK, 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 cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Petitioner John Squire appeals the district court's dismissal 

of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. After an altercation 

with his cellmate Johnny Bristow, Mr. Squire was disciplined for 

assault and for possession of a sharpened instrument. As a 

result, his presumptive parole date was rescinded by the Bureau of 

*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: 91-3369 Document: 010110240422 Date Filed: 04/10/1992 Page: 1
Prisons (BOP). Mr. Squire alle ges that his due process rights 

were infringed in the proceedings leading to this decision. 

Specifically, he complains that there was not evidence sufficient 

to support the action of the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO), 

and that the process afforded him was insuffi cient to enable him 

adequately to defend himself. The district court rejected Mr. 

Squire's contentions, holding that the process was constitutionally adequate and that the decision was supported by 

sufficient evidence. Mr. Squire has filed a petition for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis in this court. We grant that petition, 

and we affirm. 

Mr. Squire was informed that he would be given a hearing at 

which he would have the opportunity to call witnesses and present 

documentary evidence . He declined the invitation to call 

witnesses, but he did express a desire to introduce letters he 

alleged Mr. Bristow had written indicating that Mr. Bristow 

intended to do something to be transferred to another institution. 

Prison officials did not help Mr . Squire locate these letters and 

he was unable to introduce them at the hearing. He thus claims 

that he was denied the opportunity to "present documentary 

evidence when permitting him to do so [would] not be unduly 

hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals." Wolff 

v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974); see Taylor v. Wallace, 931 

F . 2d 698, 700-01 (10th Cir. 1991). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-3369 Document: 010110240422 Date Filed: 04/10/1992 Page: 2
Mr. Squire contends that he acted in self-defense, and that 

the evidence he wished to introduce would establish Mr. Bristow's 

motive for starting the fight. Apparently, the DHO did not think 

the evidence relevant. See Rec., Answer and Return at 5-6. As in 

other matters, the DHO has substantial discretion in making 

determinations of relevance . See Wolff, 4 1 8 U. S. at 561-64. A 

prison hearing is not a trial and the same evidentiary rules do 

not apply. Mr. Bristow's desire to leave the prison is at best 

tangentially related to the underlying charges against Mr. Squire. 

Under the circumstances in this case, we agree with the district 

court that the DHO's refusal to seize and to admit the evidence 

does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. 

Our review of the DHO's decision is otherwise limited to 

asking whether "some evidence" supports the conclusion. 

Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Inst. Walpole v . Hill, 472 U. S . 

445, 453 (1985). The evidence reviewed in camera by the district 

court, which we have reviewed in turn, provides substantial 

support for the DHO ' s conclusion that Mr. Squire assaulted Mr. 

Bristow and used a sharpened instrument as a weapon. Even 

assuming the veracity of Mr. Squire's contention about what Mr . 

Bristow's letters would show, ample evidence supports the DHO's 

conclusions . As a result, Mr. Squire's due process rights have 

not been infringed. See id . at 456. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-3369 Document: 010110240422 Date Filed: 04/10/1992 Page: 3
Finally, in this as in all cases, we will not consider on 

appeal issues not presented by petition to the court below. Thus, 

we do not consider the questions Mr. Squire raises about the 

various transfers between prisons that he has endured since the 

filing of this case. 

The petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is 

GRANTED. The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED. The 

mandate shall issue forthwith . 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-3369 Document: 010110240422 Date Filed: 04/10/1992 Page: 4