*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders

and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions

of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 6/19/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

RONALD D. KELLY, II,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LARRY A. FIELDS, EDWARD L.

EVANS,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 95-6328

(D. Ct. No. CIV-94-2113-C)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in 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.

This appeal is from an order of the district court adopting the report and

recommendation of the magistrate judge granting summary judgment in favor of

defendant Oklahoma state officials in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 
- 2 -

Pro se plaintiff Kelly appeals on the ground that the district court erred in granting

summary judgment and alleges that mistreatment by the Oklahoma Department of

Corrections violates the requirements of Battle v. Anderson, 376 F. Supp. 402 (E.D. Okla.

1974). Plaintiff brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that

he was deprived of a liberty interest when defendant Fields issued a department-wide

directive which provided that inmates of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections

convicted of murder were no longer eligible for minimum or community security

classifications. Prior to the issuance of that directive plaintiff was serving a 35 year

sentence for second-degree murder at James Crabtee Correctional Center and had been

assigned a minimum security classification. Plaintiff and other inmates affected by the

directive were notified of the change in policy and advised that they could either remain

at the medium security yard at James Crabtree Correctional Center or be sent to maximum

security at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary. 

Plaintiff chose to remain at the Crabtree Center and was transferred to medium

security. Although plaintiff may have been eligible for “grandfathering” into minimum

security, defendant Evans, the warden of the facility, chose not to grandfather any inmates

at that facility. Thus, plaintiff was housed in medium security. In this civil rights action,

plaintiff alleges that he was denied due process under the Fourteenth Amendment when

he was transferred from minimum to medium security. Specifically, plaintiff asserts that

he has a liberty interest created by the Oklahoma Department of Corrections regulations
- 3 -

and policies that require that he be given a hearing prior to a transfer of classification. No

hearing was held. Plaintiff was transferred as a part of a broad Oklahoma Department of

Corrections change in policy. Plaintiff further alleges that the failure to provide a hearing

violates the requirements of Battle v. Anderson, 376 F. Supp. 402 (E.D. Okla. 1974). 

Plaintiff sought monetary damages and reclassification to minimum security as a “class

member” in Battle v. Anderson, supra.

We agree with the district court that a change in prison classification does not

violate the Fourteenth Amendment rights of inmates either under the federal constitution

or under any Oklahoma statutes or regulations of the Oklahoma Department of

Corrections. The Supreme Court made clear in Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976)

that changes in prison security classifications do not implicate Fourteenth Amendment

liberty interests. Further, this court in Twyman v. Crisp, 584 F.2d 352 (10th Cir. 1978)

held that the Oklahoma prison classification system creates no liberty interest which

requires due process prior to reclassification. Further, we agree with the magistrate judge

that the regulations of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections do not create a liberty

interest in a classification rating. The cited regulations merely provide procedures to be

followed by prison personnel when a classification hearing is held. These regulations

simply do not create any right to remain at a particular security classification level. 

To the extent that the case as it was presented to the district court raises issues

related to the requirements of Battle v. Anderson, id., we agree with the magistrate judge
- 4 -

that plaintiff has failed to establish that he has been deprived of any liberty interest and

therefore has not been denied any constitutional rights cognizable under 42 U.S.C. §

1983.

We have reviewed plaintiff’s brief, the pleadings, the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendations, the district court order, and have carefully examined the entire record

on appeal. Based upon our review of this record, we affirm the order of the district court

for substantially the reasons set forth in the report and recommendation of the magistrate

judge. AFFIRMED.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Deanell Reece Tacha

Circuit Judge