Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06343/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06343-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Francis
Appellee
Henry Hutcherson
Appellee
Alvin Parker
Appellant
Dolores Ramsey
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ALVIN PARKER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

DOLORES RAMSEY, HENRY HUTCHERSON, 

and WILLIAM FRANCIS, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

FEBO 8 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-6343 

(D.C. No. CIV-91-1298-T) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE and BRORBY, Circuit Judgges. 

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 case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff Alvin Parker appeals from dismissal of his 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against employees of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. The complaint asserted that he was denied 

* 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: 92-6343 Document: 010110170315 Date Filed: 02/08/1993 Page: 1 
due process in disciplinary proceedings because he was not pro -

vided an adequate written statement of the evidence relied upon 

and reasons for that discipline . The district court ultimately 

granted summary judgment in favor of defendant. 

This complaint stems from an offense report for disruptive 

behavior issued against plaintiff after he failed to submit t o 

substance abuse testing as required by Oklahoma Department of Corrections policy. Corrections Officer Terrel claimed he requested 

plaintiff to provide a "U.A." (urinalysis) but plaintiff refused, 

stating "I don't do those . " Doc. 14, Att. H. Plaintiff claimed 

Terrel told him to "go pee", and acknowledged he replied "I don ' t 

do that . " Id. Att. C. Terrel then filed an offense report. The 

investigation, investigation report and hearing followed. The 

hearing officer found plaintiff guilty of disruptive behavior . 

Punishment consisted of loss of 100 earned credits and 40 hours of 

extra duty. On appeals the warden and director of corrections 

affirmed that decision. This litigation followed . The district 

court promptly ordered a report pursuant to Martinez v. Aaron, 570 

F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978). 

The only issue on appeal is whether the "written statement by 

the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and the reasons" for 

the d isciplinary action afforded plaintiff the due process to 

wh i c h he was entitled i n a prison disciplinary proceeding . Wolff 

v . McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539 , 564 -65 (1974 ) (quotations omitted). 

spec ifically, p l aintiff chall enges the written report of the discipl inary h earing because it simply references the offense report 

-2-

-

Appellate Case: 92-6343 Document: 010110170315 Date Filed: 02/08/1993 Page: 2 
and investigator's report as the evidence relied upon in finding 

plaintiff guilty. 

Wolff established the due process guarantees of inmates 

charged with disciplinary infractions. Among those is the right 

to receive a written statement of the evidence supporting and reasons for the discipline imposed. The stated rationale for this 

requirement was to provide a record for subsequent review of the 

disciplinary decision, insure prison officials would act fairly, 

and provide the inmate with a record from which to pursue an 

administrative appeal or defend against future charges. Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S . 445, 456-57 (1985), examined the evidentiary requirements for meeting this due process standard. Hill 

decided that the findings made at a disciplinary hearing need only 

be supported by "some evidence" and may not be arbitrary. Id. at 

457. 

Plaintif's allegations arise from a single verbal exchange 

with Terrel . Plaintiff asserts that he was not told that Terrel 

wanted the specimen for drug screening . Plaintiff essentially 

admits refusing a valid request to submit to urinalysis, by characterizing the incident as a misunderstanding of Terrel's request. 

Plaintiff all but admitted he intentionally refused to comply with 

institutional substance abuse testing rules. The only issues 

before the hearing officer were whether plaintiff's explanation 

for this refusal was credible and if not, establishing punishment 

and explaining the reasons therefor. The hearing officer' s finding that plaintiff was guilty of disruptive behavior is supported 

by both the offense report and investigation report. The parties' 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-6343 Document: 010110170315 Date Filed: 02/08/1993 Page: 3 
respective positions are adequately stated in these documents. 

The hearing officer also explained in writing the basis for the 

punishment imposed, i.e., "Nature of the offense & to deter Mr. 

Parker from this type of behavior in the future." Doc. 14, Att . 

D. The written report of plaintiff's disciplinary hearing, therefore, satisfied the rationale in Wolff, is supported by the record 

and was not arbitrary. 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith . 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-6343 Document: 010110170315 Date Filed: 02/08/1993 Page: 4