A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antthe part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e21,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT M E RC E BA RO CI O, P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v . J U STI N J O N ES, R es pondent - A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 6293 ( D. C. No. 0 5 - CV - 1 2 5 9 - HE) (W .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e B RI S CO E , S EY M OUR , and AN DE RS ON , C i rcui tJudg es.

Pet i t i onerM er ce Bar oci o, an O kl ahoma st at e pr i s onerappea r i ng pr o s e, fi l ed a pe t i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus under28 U . S. C . § 2241 al l egi ng that p ri s o n o ffic ia ls a rb itr a ri ly re d u c e d h is e a rn e d -c re d it le v e l w ith o u t d u e p ro c e s s . T he di s tr i ctcourtr efe r r ed the mat t ert o a magi s tr at e j udge, w ho r ecomm ended that the p eti ti o n b e d en ied. O v er p eti ti o n er’s w ri tt en o bjecti o n s, the d istri ct co u rt-2-

adopt ed the magi s tr at e j udge’ s r eportand r ecomm endat i on ( R & R ) and deni ed the pet i t i on. T hi s courtgr ant ed a c er t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i tyand or der ed the r es pondentt o fi l e a br i ef, w hi ch he ha s done. E xer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on under 28 U . S. C . § 2253, w e gr antpet i t i oner ’ s m ot i on t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a u p e ris and a ffirm th e d istric t co u rt’s ju d g m e n t. I . Backg r ound B efor e turni ng t o t he part i cul arfac t s of thi s cas e, w e fi r s tout l i ne the r el evantpr ovi s i ons of O kl ahoma’ s i nm at e- cl as s i fi cat i on s y s t em. U ndert hat s y s t em, “eve r yi nm at e of a s t at e corr ect i onal i ns t i tut i on s hal l have thei rt erm of im p ri so n m en t r ed u ce d m o n thly , b ase d u p o n the c lass leve l t o w h ich th eyare a ss ig n e d .” O k la. S tat. tit . 5 7 , § 1 3 8 (A ). T h e re a re fo u r c las s le v e ls. A n in m a te i n L evel I I , I I I , orI V earns cr edi t s eac h m onth t ow ar d ear l yr el eas e, w her eas an in m a te in L e v e l I e a rn s n o c re d its . See i d. , § 1 3 8 (D )(2 )(b ). “E a c h e a rn e d c re d it i s equi val entt o one . . . dayof i ncar cer at i on. ” Id. , § 1 3 8 (A ). T o b e a ss ig n e d to L evel I V , the hi ghes tl evel , an i nm at e musthave be en i ncar cer at ed forei ght m onths and musthave r ece i ved an “ out s t andi ng” eva l uat i on i n a numberof d iffe re n t b e h a v io ra l c a te g o ri e s , in c lu d in g w o rk p e rfo rm a n c e . Id. , § 1 3 8 (D )( 1 )( d ). T h e in m a te’ s a dju stm e n t re v iew c o m m itt e e h a s th e d isc re tio n to d e m o te a n in m a te fr om L evel I V i f i tdet erm i nes thatt he i nm at e’ s per form ance i n anyof the behavi or al cat egor i es fal l s bel ow “out s t andi ng. ” See i d. , § 1 3 8 (B ), ( D )( 3 ), ( F ). B eca us e cl as s i fi cat i on i n L evel I I r equi r es a “good” eval uat i on i n the beha vi or al-3-

ca tego ri es, an inm ate w h o rec eive s a “ p o o r” e v alua ti o n in a b eh av ioral ca tego ry c a n b e d e m o te d to L e v e l I . See i d. , § 138( D ) . T he adj us t m entr evi ew comm i t t ee is t o ev alua te ea ch inm ate’s class lev el an d p erfo rm an ce “[ a]t l ea st on ce ev ery fo u r . . . m o n th s” to “ d e ter m in e w h e th e r o r n o t th e c las s le v e l fo r th e in m a te s houl d be cha nged. ” Id. , § 1 3 8 (F ). T he pol i cyof the O kl ahoma D epart m entof C or r ect i ons ( O D O C ) i n effect w hen pet i t i oner ’ s earned- cr edi tl evel w as r educe d fur therpr ovi ded thatdemot i ons to L e v e l I m a yo c c u r “ w h e n e v e r d e e m e d a p p ro p ria te b yth e fa c ili ty/u n it cl as s i fi cat i on comm i t t ee. ” O D O C Pol i cyO P- 060107, ¶ I . C . 2. a. ( eff. D ec. 29, 2004) . T he pol i cyal s o i ndi cat es thatas s i gnm entt o L evel I m ayoccuri n a lim ite d n u m b e r o f

m a n d a to ry c ir c u m s ta n c e s , in c lu d in g “ re m o v a l f ro m a jo b . . . as s i gnm entdue t o nonper form ance orm i s conductr el at ed t o the j ob. ” Id. , ¶ I . C . 2. a. 3. T he pol i cycont empl at es thats uch j ob “[f] ai l ur es w i l l be document ed byan offens e r eport. . . . A s s i gnm entt o L evel I i n l i eu of a n offe ns e r eportcan onl ybe done bythe fa ci l i tycl as s i fi cat i on comm i t t ee. ” Id. A gai ns tthi s backdr op, w e now tur n t o the fa ct s of thi s cas e. W hi l e a L e v e l-IV p riso n e r a t th e L a w to n C o rre c tio n a l F a c ili ty , a p riv a te p riso n in O kl ahoma, pet i t i onerw or ked i n a garm entfac t oryi n the O kl ahoma C orr ect i onal I ndus tr i es ( O C I ) . A s pet i t i oner ’ s w or k s upervi s or , T om L ew i s , l at erdes cr i bed event s , he t ol d pet i t i oneron February9, 2005, “t o tur n i n a j ob change beca us e he w a s h a v in g tr o u b le c o m in g to w o rk a n d s ta y in g a ll d a y .” R ., D o c . 1 5 , E x . 1 .T he t erm “adj us t m entr evi ew comm i t t ee” us ed i n the r el evants t atut e and 1 O D O C p o licya p p e a rs s yn o n ym o u s w ith “ fa c ili tyc las sifica tio n c o m m itt e e /u n it te a m .” -4- A p ri so n o fficer, H o w ard T rah an , ap p are n tl ytold p eti ti o n er’s u n itm an ag er, C liffo rd B a rn a rd , th a t p e titio n e r w a s fir e d f ro m h is jo b w ith th e O C I. See i d. , E x. 4. O n February14, pet i t i oner ’ s fac i l i tycl as s i fi cat i on comm i t t ee/uni tt eam 1 ( U ni tT eam) compl et ed an I ntr a- Faci l i tyA s s i gnm entFor m , w hi ch s how ed a change i n j ob s t atus fr om “O C I ” t o “J ob Pool , ” effec t i ve February21, 2005, and w hi ch not ed that , “PerT . L ew i s I / M fi r ed he w on’ tcome [t ] o w or k. ” Id. , E x . 2 at1. A ppar ent l yaft erm eet i ng w i th pet i t i oner , t he U ni tT eam com pl et ed a “ N ew A rr i val / A dj us tm entR evi ew / E arned C r edi tL evel ” form dat ed February16 ( A dj us t m entR evi ew For m ) , w hi ch s t at es : “D emot e t o l evel 1 due t o bei ng fi r ed fr om hi s j ob and r efus i ng t o go t o w or k. ” Id. , E x . 2 a t3 ( typ e fa c e a l t e r e d ) . On the A dj us t m entR evi ew For m , the U ni tT eam r at ed pet i t i oner ’ s “C urr entPat t erns of B ehavi or ” as fol l ow s : s t aff

— poor ; pr ogr am par t i ci pat i on— out s t andi ng; j ob— poor ; ot heri nm at es — out s t andi ng; per s onal hy gi ene— good; l i vi ng a re a — g o o d . Id. , E x. 2 at2. S ev era l w ee k s lat er, M r. L ew is sen t a m em o ran d u m to M r. B ern ard ex p lai n ing that p eti ti o n er “ w as-n o t [sic] w ri tt en -up n o r fired ” b u t th at “[ b ]y m utual agr eementi tw as det erm i ned that[he] w as notcutoutfort he ki nd of w o rk ” d o n e in th e g a rm e n t fa c to ry. Id. , D o c . 1 , A tta c h . a t 1 (e m p h a s is o m itte d ). M r . L ew i s opi ned thatpet i t i oner ’ s “l evel s houl d nothave be en dr opped norany-5-

s anct i ons l evi ed aga i ns thi m i n anyw ay . ” Id. M r. B e rn a rd re p lied th a t th e U n it T e a m h a d n o t issu e d p e tit io n e r a m isc o n d u c t fo r b e in g fire d , b u t d e m o ted h im to L e v e l I b a s e d o n h is s ta te m e n t th a t h e d id n o t lik e h is a s s ig n e d jo b . Id. , D oc. 15, E x. 3. M r. B ernar d fu rther cl ari fi ed the r easons fo r r edu ci ng peti t i on er’ s cl ass l evel : pet i t i oner“r eques t ed thi s j ob as s i gnm ent , ” “the uni tt eam feel s t hatw hen a n in m a te’ s s u p e rv iso r re q u e sts th e in m a te b e re a ss ig n e d fo r fa ili n g to c o m e to w or k, the i nm at e w as fi r ed fora w or k r el at ed mi s conduct , ” and “ [t ] he uni tt eam fee l s thatthi s act i on i s w arr ant ed t o ens ur e that[pet i t i oner ] under s t ands t he i m por t ance of goi ng t o w or k w hen he i s s chedul ed t o w or k. ” Id . M r. B ern ard also m ad e itclea r th at pe ti ti o n er w o u ld b e re assig n ed to a n ew job an d co u ld ea rn a p ro m o tio n to a h ig h e r c la s s le v e l if h e p e rfo rm e d w e ll. See i d. Pet i t i oner ’ s R eques tt o St aff, s eeki ng r ei ns t at ementt o L evel I V , w as deni ed fo r su b sta n tiallyth e sa m e re a so n s s tate d in M r. B e rn a rd ’s m e m o ra n d u m to M r. L e w is . See i d. , D o c. 1, A tt ac h . at 4. A fter h is ad m inistrati v e g ri ev an ce s w ere deni ed as unt i m el y , pet i t i onerfi l ed the pr es enthabea s act i on, and the di s tr i ct courtr efe r r ed i tt o a magi s tr at e j udge. I n herR & R , t he magi s tr at e j udge r eas oned th a t b e c a u se p e tit io n e r’s d e m o tio n to lev e l o n e w a s n o t m a n d a to rya n d a u to m a tic underO D O C pol i cy , he coul d notdemonstr at e a l i bertyi nt er es ti n r emai ni ng at L evel I V . T he di s tr i ctcourtadopt ed the R & R , and pet i t i onerappea l ed.-6- I I . D i s cus s i on P e tit io n e r ra ise s fiv e a rg u m e n ts o n a p p e a l: (i) the d istric t co u rt e rre d in r ender i ng j udgm entw i thoutconduct i ng an evi dent i aryhear i ng t o r es ol ve fa ctual d ispu tes; (i i) the d istri ct co u rt ’s reaso n ing w as in co n sist en t t o the e x tent the c o u rt acknow l edged M r . B ernar d’ s s t at ementt hatpet i t i onerw as fi r ed forw or k- r el at ed m i s conductbutfound thatthe demot i on t o L evel I w as di s cr et i onary ; ( i i i ) t he di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n r el y i ng s ol el yon the abs ence of a w r i t t en mi s conduct , and over l ooked the fa ctthatM r . B ernar d avoi ded thi s es t abl i s hed pr ocedur e i n or der t o s ki r tanydue pr oces s r equi r ement s ; ( i v) t he dur at i on of pet i t i oner ’ s r educt i on to L e v e l I is im m a ter ial; a n d (v ) O k lah o m a in m a tes h a v e a lib e rtyin ter e st in th e ir classifica ti o n leve l un d er Wi ls on v. Jones , 4 3 0 F .3 d 1 1 1 3 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ), c e rt. deni ed , 1 2 7 S . C t. 15 8 (2 0 0 6 ). W e w ill a d d re ss th e las t ar g u m e n t first b e c a u se it a ffe c ts o u r c o n sid e ra tio n o f th e o th e rs, a n d w e w ill c o n sid e r th e o th e r a rg u m e n ts i n or derof ana l yt i cal conveni ence . W e r evi ew t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ct fo r c le a r e rr o r a n d its le g a l c o n c lu s io n s d e n o v o . B u rg e r v . Sc o tt , 317 F. 3d 1133, 1 1 3 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). W e c o n stru e p eti ti o n er’s p ro se p lead ing s an d o ther p ap ers lib e ra lly, b u t w e d o n o t a c t a s h is a d v o c a te . See Hal lv. B el lm on , 935 F. 2d 1106, 1 1 1 0 & n . 3 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). I n Wi ls on v. Jones , w e h e ld th a t a m isc o n d u c t co n v ictio n th a t w a s th e so le r eas on fora mandat oryr educt i on of an i nm at e’ s cl as s i fi cat i on t o L evel I under O klahom a’s i nm at e-cl assi fi cat i on schem e i m pli cat ed a li bertyi nter estbecau se-7-

p ri s o n o ffic ia ls h a d a b s o lu te ly n o d is c re tio n in d e m o tin g th e in m a te . See Wi ls on , 430 F. 3d at1120- 21 . I n s uch ci r cumst ance s , w e hel d, the mi s conductconvi ct i on inev it ab lyaffe cted the d u rati o n o f th e inm ate’s se n tenc e u n d er Sandi n v. C onner , 5 1 5 U .S . 4 7 2 , 4 8 7 (1 9 9 5 ), s ee Wi ls on , 430 F. 3d at1120, and ther efor e hi s due p roc ess righ ts w ere v iolated u n d er Wo lff v . McD o n n e ll , 4 1 8 U . S . 5 3 9 (19 7 4 ), b e c a u s e h e w a s c o n v ic te d o f m is c o n d u c t w ith o u t a n ye v id e n c e , s ee Wi ls on , 430 F. 3d at1124. In c o n tr ast, the c ir cu m stan ce s su rrou n d ing the e n d o f p eti ti o n er’s empl oym entatthe garm entfac t ory , w hi l e appa r ent l yan i m por t antfac t ori n the U n it T e a m ’s d e c isio n , d id n o t requir e th e U n it T e a m to d e m o te h im . T h e U n it T eam cons i der ed hi s w or k per form ance as one fa ct ori n i t s deci s i on. N ot abl y , t he U ni tT eam al s o cons i der ed pet i t i oner ’ s per form ance i n otherbehavi or al cat ego ri es, i ncludi ng his “po or” score i n the “st aff” category , w hich i t sel f w as a su fficie n t b a sis fo r th e U n it T e a m to d e m o te p e tit io n e r, in its d isc re tio n , to L evel I r egar dl es s of hi s w or k per form ance . T her efor e, the ci r cumst ance su rro u n d in g th e e n d o f h is e m p lo ym e n t at th e g a rm e n t fa c to ryw a s n o t th e so le and mandat i ng caus e of hi s demot i on, and Wi ls on is in a p p lic a b le . See Cardos o v. C al bone , N o. 06- 6266, ___ F. 3d ___, 2007 W L 1739694, at*3 ( 10th C i r . J une 18, 2 0 0 7 ) (rejec tin g th e “ a rg u m e n t th a t Wi ls on re c o g n ize d a n u n c o n d iti o n a l li b e rty i nt er es ti n an O kl ahoma pr i s oner ’ s cr edi t - earni ng cl as s i fi cat i on” and hol di ng that-8-

di s cr et i onaryi nm at e- cl as s i fi cat i on deci s i ons i n O kl ahoma do noti m pl i cat e a li b ertyinterest). P e titio n e r’ s re m a in in g a rg u m e n ts d o n o t c o m p e l a d iffe re n t c o n c lu s io n . B eca us e pet i t i onerw as notactual l yr emoved fr om hi s j ob, hi s l evel r educt i on w as notm andat ed byO D O C Pol i cyO P- 060107, ¶ I . C . 2. a. 3. I tther efor e fol l ow s that no offe ns e r eportorw r i t t en mi s conductw as r equi r ed, and the magi s tr at e j udge j us t i fi abl yr el i ed on the abs ence of anys uch w r i t i ng i n s uppor tof her d e ter m in a tio n th a t th e d e m o tio n w a s d isc re tio n a ry . A n ye rro n e o u s v iew th e U n it T eam m ayhave ha d thatpet i t i onerw as , i n fac tori n effect , r emoved fr om hi s j ob w i thi n the meani ng of O D O C Pol i cyO P- 060107, ¶ I . C . 2. a. 3. , as s ugges t ed byt he w r i t t en comm ent s on the I ntr a- Faci l i tyA s s i gnm entFor m and the A dj us t m ent R eview F orm , do es not gi ve ri se t o a li bertyi nter estsubjectt o d ue p rocess p rotec ti o n s u n d er Wi ls on . N ordoes i ts ugges tthatthe U ni tT eam avoi ded i s s ui ng a mi s conductt o pet i t i oneri n or dert o s ki r tanydue pr oces s r equi r ement s that m i ghtatt end a mandat orydemot i on. T he fa ctr emai ns thathe w as notfi r ed, and there fo re w e d o n o t view the m ag istrate jud g e’s c o n clus ion that the U n itT ea m ’s d e c isio n w a s d isc re tio n a rya s in c o n sis ten t w ith h e r a c k n o w led g m e n t o f th e U n it T e a m ’s w ri tte n c o m m e n ts th a t p e titio n e r w a s d e m o te d b e c a u s e h e w a s fir e d . A gai n, the U ni tT eam cons i der ed otherfac t or s i n r eac hi ng i t s deci s i on that p erm itted d iscreti o n aryd em o ti o n to L ev el I rega rdless o f p eti ti o n er’s w o rk p e rfo rm a n c e . T h u s, w e a g re e w ith th e m a g istra te ju d g e th a t an yfa c tu a l d isp u te-9-

a b o u t p e tit io n e r’s a b se n c e s f ro m w o rk w e re n o t cr iti c a l to th e d isp o sitio n o f h is cl ai m s , and cons equent l yw e r ej ecthi s ar gum entthathe w as ent i t l ed t o an ev iden ti aryh ea ri n g co n ce rnin g M r. B ern ard ’s “d eterm ination ” o f h is w o rk per form ance . Fi nal l y , w e agr ee w i th pet i t i onerthatthe pot ent i al l ym i ni m al dur at i on of h i s r e d u c t i o n t o Le v e l I i s a n i mma t e r i a l d i s t i n c t i o n f r o m Wi ls on , w her e the i nm at e w as notperm i t t ed t o be pr om ot ed above L evel I I fortw o y ear s even i f he e a rn e d s u c h a p ro m o tio n , s ee Wi ls on , 430 F. 3d at1116. B uti n vi ew of our concl us i on thatpet i t i oner ’ s cas e does notfal l w i thi n Wi ls on , the s i gni fi canc e the m agis trat e j ud ge p l aced o n thi s di st i ncti on w as harm l ess. T h e ju d g m e n t o f

th e d istric t co u rt is A F F IR M E D . P e tit io n e r’s m o tio n to pr ocee d in fo rm a p a u

p e ris o n a p p e a l is g ra n ted , an d h e is re m in d e d o f h is o b lig a tio n to c o n tin u e m a k in g p a rtial p a ym e n ts u n til h is fili n g fe e is p a id in f u ll.

E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

M aryB eck Bri s coe C i r cui tJ udge