Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07119/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07119-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alan Wayne Gockley
Appellant
Kevin Lemmond
Appellee
Dolores Ramsey
Appellee
Mike Taylor
Appellee
James Wallace
Appellee

Document Text:

FIL.CJ lJ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .ted Stat~ C,ourt of Ap:-~~b n1 '- c· ·, 'fen~1 .,r.:u1 . 

ALAN WAYNE GOCKLEY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

KEVIN LEMMOND, JAMES WALLACE, MIKE 

TAYLOR, and DOLORES RAMSEY, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

APR2 ~ 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-7119 

(D.C. No. 89-255-C) 

(E.D. Okla.) 

Before LOGAN, BARRE'n' and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the 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); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Alan Wayne Gockley, an inmate at the Oklahoma State 

Reformatory, appearing pro se, appeals from an order of the 

district court affirming and adopting the findings and 

recommendation of the u. s. Magistrate and granting summary 

judgment in favor of appellees, officials within the Oklahoma 

* 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: 91-7119 Document: 010110243022 Date Filed: 04/22/1992 Page: 1
Department of Corrections. We grant Gockley's motion to proceed 

in forma pauperis and for a certificate of probable cause. 

On May 13, 1988, a devastating riot occurred at the Mack 

Alford Correctional Center (MACC), a medium security penitentiary 

in Stringtown, Oklahoma, where Gockley was incarcerated. The riot 

caused over 7.7 million dollars in damage and totally destroyed 

portions of MACC. Gockley was alleged to have set fires and to 

have participated in the riot. Following the riot, 435 inmates, 

including Gockley, were transferred from MACC to Oklahoma State 

Penitentiary (OSP), McAlester, Oklahoma, a maximum security 

penitentiary. 

At OSP, Gockley was placed in restrictive housing pending 

investigation of his involvement in the MACC riot. Following an 

investigation, Gockley was convicted of group disruption and 

reclassified to maximum security resulting in his inability to 

earn emergency time credits (cap credits) under Okla. Stat. Tit. 

57 § 574 (1989). 

Gockley subsequently filed a 42 u.s.c. § 1983 civil rights 

complaint alleging that appellees deprived him of his due process 

rights when they transferred him to OSP, placed him in restrictive 

housing, and reclassified him to maximum security status. Gockley 

also alleged that he was denied due process when he lost the 

opportunity to earn cap credits. Gockley sought to have the group 

disruption charge expunged from his record, to have certain cap 

credits applied to his record, and to be returned to his prior 

security status. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-7119 Document: 010110243022 Date Filed: 04/22/1992 Page: 2
Gockley's case was assigned to a magistrate. Appellees moved 

to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be 

granted. The magistrate notified the parties that he was treating 

appellees' motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment. 

Within its findings and recommendation that Gockley's 

complaint should be dismissed, the magistrate found and concluded, 

based on undisputed facts: an emergency situation existed during 

and subsequent to the riot; during the emergency situation, normal 

prison disciplinary proceedings and relevant ti.me frames were 

suspended in order to guarantee the safety of the inmates and 

correctional employees. 

The magistrate further found and concluded that: in light of 

the situation, Gockley was provided a hearing within a reasonable 

time; Gockley's due process rights were not violated in regard to 

his transfer to OSP, his placement in restrictive housing, or his 

classification to maxi.mum security; cap credits under§ 574 are an 

act of legislative grace; Gockle y had no p r ote cted interest in cap 

credits; because Gockley did nothing to earn cap credits, he 

cannot claim the right to earn them when his securi ty status has 

been reclassified; Gockley was afforde d an opportunity for a 

he aring and review via procedures which comported with due process 

of law; and Gockley has not alleged facts nece ssary to support a 

claim for a violation of his eighth amendment right to be free 

from cruel and unusual punishme nt. 

In affirming and adopting the magistrate ' s findings and 

r e commendation, the distr i c t court c onc luded: the reports given 

Gockle y comported with the due process r e quirements of Wolff v . 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-7119 Document: 010110243022 Date Filed: 04/22/1992 Page: 3
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (due process requires that a prison 

inmate be given a written statement by the factfinder of the 

evidence relied upon and the reasons for the disciplinary action 

taken); due process requirements are satisfied if "some evidence," 

Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985), supports the 

decision for disciplinary action; appellees provided "some 

evidence" supporting the disciplinary hearing officer's finding 

that Gockley had participated in the riot. 

The court also concluded that: Gockley was not denied due 

process with respect to the disciplinary action taken against him 

following his transfer to OSP in the aftermath of the MACC riot; 

Gockley's complaint that he lost the opportunity to earn cap 

credits is, in effect, a challenge to the duration of his 

imprisonment for which his sole remedy is a writ of habeas corpus; 

and Gockley must exhaust his state law remedies before instituting 

a federal habeas corpus action. 

On appeal, Gockley contends that he was denied due process 

during the course of the disciplinary proceedings and that he was 

subjected to cruel and unusual punishment by being placed in 

maximum security and losing his cap credit eligibility. 

I. 

Gockley contends that he was denied due process during the 

course of the prison disciplinary proceedings. Gockley contends 

that: he did not receive a written statement of the evidence 

relied on at his disciplinary hearing; he did not receive an 

adequate offense report from which he could prepare a proper 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-7119 Document: 010110243022 Date Filed: 04/22/1992 Page: 4
defense; and appellees failed to follow their own regulations with 

respect to his transfer from MACC to OSP and his disciplinary 

proceedings. 

a. 

We agree with the district court that Gockley received an 

adequate written statement of the evidence relied on at his 

disciplinary hearing: 

Plaintiff first complains that he did not receive 

a written statement of the evidence relied on at his 

disciplinary hearing. In Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 

539 (1974), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that due 

process required that a prison inmate be given a written 

statement by the factfinder as to the evidence relied 

upon and the reasons for the disciplinary action taken. 

* * * 

In the present case, plaintiff's signature on an 

offense report dated June 16, 1988 indicates his receipt 

of that report which charged plaintiff with the offense 

of "group disruption" and described the offense as 

"along with other inmates, [plaintiff] did participate 

in activities such as the setting of fires and acting 

disorderly. The offense report identified the 

information as based on 'Officer observation' and 

identified Officer Kevin Lemmond as the only staff 

witness." The court finds that plaintiff's offense 

report gave plaintiff a sufficient description of the 

evidence to be used against him, that with the 

disciplinary action report, comported with the due 

process requirements of Wolff. 

(R., File #2, Order, September 30, 1991, pp. 2-3). 

b. 

We reject Gockley's contention that he did not receive an 

adequate offense report from which he could prepare a proper 

defense. The offense report which Gockley received specifically 

charged him with "group disruption" and described the offense as 

"participat[ing] in activities such as the setting of fires and 

acting disorderly." Inasmuch as "[p]rison disciplinary 

-5-

Appellate Case: 91-7119 Document: 010110243022 Date Filed: 04/22/1992 Page: 5
proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full 

panoply of rights due a defendant in such procee dings does not 

apply," Wolff v. McDonnell, supra, at p. 555, we hold that the 

written notice afforded Gockley was adequate and not in violation 

of his due process rights. 

c. 

Gockley contends that the appellees violated his due process 

rights when they failed to follow their own rules and regulations 

with respect to his transfer to OSP and his disciplinary 

proceedings. Gockley argues that appellees were required to 

follow their own rules and time frames. 

Prison officials have broad administrative and discretionary 

authority over the institutions they manage. The administration 

of a prison is, "at best an extraordinarily difficult 

undertaking," Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 467 (1983), quoting 

Wolff v . McDonnell, supra, at p. 566. Thus, "[p]rison 

administrators. . should be accorded wide-ranging deference in 

the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their 

judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and 

to maintain institutional security." Bell v . Wolfish, 441 U.S. 

520, 54 7 ( 1979) . 

An emergency situation existed during and after the 

devastating riot at MACC. Appellees were required to immediately 

relocate over four hundred inmates and staff. Gockley was 

transferred to OSP where he was placed in restrictive housing 

pending an investigation into his participation in the MACC riot. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 91-7119 Document: 010110243022 Date Filed: 04/22/1992 Page: 6
The magistrate found that under such circumstances it was 

"understandable that normal prison disciplinary proceedings and 

relevant time frames were suspended to guarantee the safety of the 

inmates and correctional employees." (R., File #2, Tab 40, p. 4). 

The district court concluded that the defendants did not act 

"unreasonably in suspending the normal time frames for 

disciplinary actions and in failing to notify the plaintiff of 

that suspension, as the defendants attempted to stabilize the 

prison conditions in the aftermath of the Stringtown riot." (R., 

File #2, Order, September 30, 1991, p. 5). We agree. 

Notwithstanding the riot and the necessity to relocate the 

inmates and support staff, Gockley received written notice of the 

offense report filed against him on June 16, 1988, approximately 

one month after the riot. Thereafter, Gockley requested and 

received an administrative hearing on July 18, 1988, at which he 

was allowed to testify and call any witnesses. Under these 

circumstances, we agree with the magistrate's findings, affirmed 

and adopted by the district court, that Gockley was provided a 

hearing within a reasonable period of time and that his due 

process rights were not violated by his transfer to OSP, his 

placement in restrictive housing, and his subsequent 

classification to maximum security. 

II. 

Gockley contends that he was subjected to cruel and unusual 

punishment and denied due process when, after finding him guilty 

-7-

Appellate Case: 91-7119 Document: 010110243022 Date Filed: 04/22/1992 Page: 7
of a rule violation, appellees housed him in maximum security and 

took away his cap credit eligibility. 

We agree with the district court's finding that this 

contention cannot be considered in this proceeding: 

Plaintiff finally complains that upon transfer to 

the penitentiary and reclassification to maximum 

security status he lost the opportunity to earn 

emergency time credits [cap credits] against his 

sentence .... 

Since cap credits are applied to reduce the length 

of the sentence, plaintiff is in effect challenging the 

duration of physical imprisonment and seeks as relief 

the determination that he is entitled to a speedier 

release. However, the plaintiff's sole federal remedy 

is a writ of habeas corpus. Freiser v. Rodriguez, 411 

U.S. 475, 500 (1972). Plaintiff must have exhausted his 

state law remedies before instituting a federal habeas 

corpus action. See Taylor v. Wallace, 931 F . 2d 698, 

699-700 n. 1 (10th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff's appeal of 

the dismissal of his state district court action is 

still pending before the Oklahoma Supreme Court, and 

thus he cannot yet be deemed to have exhausted his state 

law remedies to enable this court to consider the loss 

of his cap credits. 

(R., File #2, Order, September 20, 1991, pp. 5-6). 

AFFIRMED. 

-8-

Entered for the Court: 

James E. Barrett, 

Senior United States 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-7119 Document: 010110243022 Date Filed: 04/22/1992 Page: 8
CHAMBERS OF THE HONORABLE JAMES E. BARRETT 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

P.O. Box 1288 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003-1288 

April 21, 1992 

Robert L. Hoecker, Clerk 

United States Circuit Court 

Dear Mr. Hoecker: 

Enclosed is my Order and Judgment in case No. 91-7119, 

GOCKLEY v. LEMMOND, which has been concurred in by the members of 

the panel. I would appreciate your filing this. 

Thank you for taking care of this matter. 

JEBlb 

-9-

Sincerely, 

Isl 

James E. Barrett 

Appellate Case: 91-7119 Document: 010110243022 Date Filed: 04/22/1992 Page: 9