Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05059/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05059-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Bird
Appellee
Ron Champion
Appellee
Don Hall
Appellee
Deloris Ramsey
Appellee
Chris Rash
Appellee
Reuben Lee Thomas
Appellant
Stephanie White
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L -~ D }c- u 'ted States Court of Appea . FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT n1 Tenth Ci't'cuit 

REUBEN LEE THOMAS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

RON CHAMPION, Warden; DON HALL, 

Correctional Officer; CHRIS RASH, 

Investigator; STEPHANIE WHITE, 

Casemanager; JAMES BIRD, Casemanager; DELORIS RAMSEY, Appellate 

Review Authority, Department of 

Corrections, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

NOV 12 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-5059 

(D. C. No. 89-C-792-E) 

(N. D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

* 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: 92-5059 Document: 010110148676 Date Filed: 11/12/1992 Page: 1 
se litigator, 

§ 1983 action 

Mr. Thomas, a state prison inmate and a pro 

appeals the judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 

against penitentiary officials for failure to state a claim. We 

review the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint de 

novo as the sufficiency of the complaint is a question of law. 

In his complaint, Mr. Thomas alleged he was deprived of his 

due process rights when he was charged with a violation for 

shoving a guard. He alleged he received notice eight days before 

the hearing, participated in a hearing, was found guilty and 

deprived of certain good time "based upon one (1) officer's word 

over his word." Mr. Thomas complains that at this hearing, he 

requested but was denied documentary evidence of his guilt. Mr. 

Thomas also asserted the guard's failure to seek medical attention 

following the incident "was fatal" to the validity of the 

disciplinary hearing. Mr. Thomas additionally complained his 

security classification had been increased . For his second count, 

Mr. Thomas alleged a violation of the Oklahoma Administrative 

Procedure Act in that the chairperson of the disciplinary 

committee relinquished her position as chairperson to another. 

Finally, in Count III, Mr. Thomas, in a most conclusory fashion, 

alleged racial discrimination because of his appearance. 

The district court ordered a Martinez report and following 

its receipt referred the case to a magistrate judge who prepared a 

seven-page report and recommendation concluding that Mr. Thomas's 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-5059 Document: 010110148676 Date Filed: 11/12/1992 Page: 2 
complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of 

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court concluded this 

magistrate judge's report should be adopted. 

Mr. Thomas appeals this decision asserting: (1) the evidence 

relied upon by the disciplinary committee was devoid of any merit; 

(2) when he appealed the decision of the disciplinary committee to 

a higher prison official, he was denied the benefit of using the 

transcript of the hearing; (3) he was only allowed two inmate 

witnesses and was refused the opportunity to call additional 

witnesses; (4) at the time of the disciplinary offense and 

conviction there did not exist a specific penal offense code for 

"Battery against Staff"; and (5) exposure to correctional officer 

tobacco smoke while confined constituted cruel or unusual 

punishment as did the filthy prison condition and the lack of sun 

in the prison. 

Mr. Thomas misperceives the law. His complaint was dismissed 

upon the theory that if everything he alleged in his complaint was 

true, he would not be entitled to relief. When a plaintiff 

commences an action pursuant to§ 1983, he is entitled to relief 

only if he can show his federal rights were violated. The United 

States Constitution does not provide protection against every 

wrong. The fact that the disciplinary committee accepted the word 

of a guard over Mr. Thomas's word is not a violation of the United 

States Constitution, nor is 

Administrative Procedure Act. 

it a violation of the Oklahoma 

Mr. Thomas's complaint of racial 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-5059 Document: 010110148676 Date Filed: 11/12/1992 Page: 3 
discrimination is not actionable because he merely stated a 

conclusion . Before a court may entertain such a complaint, a 

plaintiff must spell out or detail the facts that show the 

discrimination. Mr. Thomas failed to do this. 

A prisoner is not entitled to call as many witnesses as he 

may wish for a prison disciplinary hearing. Mr. Thomas was 

allowed to introduce the testimony of two witnesses, and that is 

all the United States Constitution requires. Wolff v. McDonnell, 

418 U.S . 539 (1974). 

Mr. Thomas's complaint against the guards' smoking and use of 

tobacco fails to show a violation of the United States 

Constitution. Mr. Thomas alleges the second-hand smoke causes 

"damage to his both inner and outer skin and molecular organic 

,makeup as to damage his lungs and heart- rate and blood flow. 11 He 

cites Clemmons v. Bohannon, 918 F . 2d 858 (10th Cir. 1990), which 

holds that an inmate's involuntary exposure to environmental 

tobacco smoke in an eight - foot cell by reason of involuntary 

double-celling with smokers, raised a triable issue of fact as to 

whether such exposure created an unreasonable risk to health. Mr. 

Thomas neglects to point out that we granted rehearing en bane in 

this case, where we reversed, holding the ·Eighth Amendment does 

not protect against possible latent harms to health. Clemmons v. 

Bohannon, 956 F.2d 1523 (10th Cir. 1992). 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-5059 Document: 010110148676 Date Filed: 11/12/1992 Page: 4 
An increase in an inmate's security classification is not 

protected by the Due Process Clause of the United 

Constitution. 

States 

All other contentions made by appellant are without merit and 

do not warrant discussion. 

The judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-5-

Appellate Case: 92-5059 Document: 010110148676 Date Filed: 11/12/1992 Page: 5