Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06075/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06075-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard Henry
Appellee
Stephen W. Kaiser
Appellee
Melvin Leroy Mahler
Appellant

Document Text:

PILito 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United Statei1 CtJIJ.H yf Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MELVIN LEROY MAHLER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

STEPHEN W. KAISER, Warden, 

and RICHARD HENRY, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

JUN 111991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-6075 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-1726) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, 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. 

Melvin Leroy Mahler, a state prisoner proceeding prose and 

in forma pauperis, appeals from an adverse summary judgment 

dismissing his 42 u.s.c. § 1983 action against two corrections 

officials. He contends that Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), which was 

invoked below, but expressly converted to a summary judgment 

proceeding under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, has no application in the 

instant case; and, that he was not given adequate notice 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: 91-6075 Document: 010110118885 Date Filed: 06/11/1991 Page: 1 
proceedings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 because the court failed to 

inform him of the consequences of not filing counter-affidavits. 

He also asserts that his Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination was violated. However, that claim, along with 

certain other arguments and materials presented on appeal, was not 

raised in the complaint or before the district court, and is not 

part of the record. We decline to address such matters. 

In its Memorandum Opinion in this case, the district court 

noted that "Plaintiff was given notice of his opportunity to 

respond consistent with Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 and he has responded." R. 

Vol. I, tab 19, p. 1. The record fully supports that finding by 

the district court and we find appellant's arguments to the 

contrary to be without merit. Further, the district court had no 

responsibility to teach Mahler how one might or ought to proceed 

under the rules. 

In his complaint Mahler argues that he was denied due process 

and equal protection because officials permitted state felony 

charges to be filed prior to certain disciplinary proceedings 

against him, allegedly contrary to department of correction's 

policies and procedures; and that he was unequally and selectively 

prosecuted (e.g., "When I chose to stand on my Constitutional 

right to remain silent, Investigator Henry stated that he was 

going to make an example of me by filing State charges, which he 

did on this same date, 1-11-90."). R. Vol. I, tab 2, pp. 2 

(emphasis in original). The facts of this case, and the foregoing 

issues, are fully set forth and addressed in the court's 

Memorandum Opinion, filed February 5, 1991. R. Vol. I, tab 19. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-6075 Document: 010110118885 Date Filed: 06/11/1991 Page: 2 
We agree with the district court's analysis. Accordingly, for the 

reasons, and upon the authorities set forth in the district 

court's opinion, a copy of which is attached hereto, the judgment 

of the district court dismissing Mahler's action is AFFIRMED. The 

mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-6075 Document: 010110118885 Date Filed: 06/11/1991 Page: 3 
'· 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR~H~ L E D 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA FEB O 5 1991 

MELVIN LEROY MAHLER, } 

} 

ROBER1 D. OEl'iN iS. ,:;L~RK 

S DIST co1ireSTERN DIST OF OKLP. 

U. · BY __!.._Le ____ . CEPUTY 

Plaintiff } 

} 

vs. } No. CIV-90-1726-R 

} 

STEPHEN W. KAISER and } 

RICHARD HENRY, } 

} 

Defendants } 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding prose and in forma 

pauperis, brings this 42 u.s.c. §1983 action for alleged violations 

of his constitutional rights. Defendants have filed a Special 

Report as ordered by the Court, Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 

(10th Cir. 1978), and have moved to dismiss. Plaintiff was given. 

notice of his opportunity to respond consistent with Fed.R.Civ.P. 

56 and he has responded. 

On January 9, 1990, while incarcerated in the Lexington 

Assessment and Reception Center (LARC}, a Department of Corrections 

employee observed plaintiff in possession of a substance which 

later was tested and proved to be marijuana. After a brief 

struggle, plaintiff was detained. A misconduct offense report was 

filed that same day. On January 16, 1990, he was found guilty in 

this institutional disciplinary hearing of the charges of 

possession of contraband and battery of a staff member. In the 

meantime, on January 11, documentation and evidence was presented 

to the Cleveland County Assistant District Attorney, resulting in 

\ \ I 

Appellate Case: 91-6075 Document: 010110118885 Date Filed: 06/11/1991 Page: 4 
c) 

criminal charges against plaintiff for possession of contraband in 

a penal institution. Plaintiff was arraigned on January 17, 1990, 

and on February 7, 1990, plaintiff pled guilty at the preliminary 

hearing. 

Plaintiff essentially alleges (1) that he has a due process 

interest in having prison misconduct charges heard prior to the 

filing of criminal charges for the same conduct, and (2) that 

defendants selectively referred his case for criminal prosecution 

in violation of his equal protection rights. 

Although state regulations containing explicitly mandatory 

language and specific substantive predicates may create a due 

process right, see Hewitt y, Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (1983), plaintiff 

fails entirely to show any such state-created due process right to 

prison disciplinary hearings prior to the filing of criminal 

charges. Plaintiff evidently misreads Department of Corrections 

regulations as designating a sequence for filing misconduct reports 

and criminal charges. Department of Corrections disciplinary 

procedures are set out in the Policy and Operation Manual 

OP-090125, effective June 10, 1990, (Special Report Attachment F) 

which states the following: 

c. Violation of criminal Law. Where an inmate 

allegedly commits an act covered by criminal 

law, the case may be referred to appropriate 

law enforcement officials for consideration of 

prosecution based on prior agreements between 

the correctional and appropriate law 

enforcement officials. 

An unidentified document dated January, 1988, (Special Report 

Attachment E) states the following: 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-6075 Document: 010110118885 Date Filed: 06/11/1991 Page: 5 
cJ _) 

An offense resulting in a plea or finding of 

guilt which may also constitute a law violation 

shall be referred to the appropriate authority 

for prosecution in addition to the imposition 

of internal sanctions. 

Neither of these statements prohibit Department of Corrections 

officials from referring cases for criminal prosecution prior to 

determination of guilt on the misconduct charges. Plaintiff's due 

process claim is without merit. 

Petitioner also claims that defendants selectively referred 

his case for criminal prosecution because he exercised his 

constitutional right to remain silent when the incident was being 

investigated at the prison, in violation of his equal protection 

rights. Plaintiff's claim is analogous to a claim of selective 

prosecution which is analyzed according to ordinary equal 

protection standards. See United States v. Wayte, 470 U.S. 598, 

608 (1985) (citing Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456 (1962)). 

Plaintiff must show that the referral of his case for criminal 

prosecution had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated 

by a discriminatory purpose. United states y, Wayte, 470 u.s. at 

608-609. Thus plaintiff must show that others similarly situated 

have not been referred for criminal prosecution fillg that the 

defendants• selection of him, as against all other inmates, was 

"based on intentional, purposeful discrimination stemming from 

impermissible considerations such as race, religion or the desire 

to prevent the exercise of other constitutionally secured rights." 

Barton v. Malley, 626 F.2d 151, 155 (10th Cir. 1980) (claim of 

selective enforcement of parole revocation guidelines requires a 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-6075 Document: 010110118885 Date Filed: 06/11/1991 Page: 6 
- ) 

showing of intentional purposeful discrimination based on 

impermissible considerations). The decision to refer the case for 

criminal prosecution is not improper unless it results solely from 

the plaintiff's exercise of a protected legal right. See United 

states y. Goodwin, 457 u.s. 368, 380, n. 11 (1982). Attachment D 

- to the Special Report is the "Felony/Misdemeanor Prosecution 

Report," covering the period of September, 1989, through November 

1990, which reflects numerous referrals from the Lexington 

Correctional Center for criminal prosecution. It includes several 

referrals for possession of contraband. Plaintiff does not allege 

that the criminal charge against him was baseless. Other than the 

bare allegation that the investigator told plaintiff that he was 

going to make an example of plaintiff after plaintiff exercised his 

constitutional right to remain silent, plaintiff has utterly failed 

to present any evidence from which the Court could infer that his 

case was referred to the District Attorney because of plaintiff's 

silence. Moreover, the unbridled scope of such an argument 

warrants its rejection. The Constitution does not prevent 

prosecution of a criminal defendant who exercises the right to 

remain silent. The Court finds that plaintiff has shown neither 

that similarly situated inmates have not had their cases referred 

for criminal prosecution, nor that the referral of his case was 

based on impermissible considerations. 

fails. 

Accordingly, this claim 

For the foregoing reasons, the defendants are entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law. A judgment will enter accordingly. 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-6075 Document: 010110118885 Date Filed: 06/11/1991 Page: 7 
c) -) 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 

F e6t'<~•'1 

day of"Janaazy, 1991. 

~qf~s~ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-6075 Document: 010110118885 Date Filed: 06/11/1991 Page: 8