T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptunderthe * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a and c ol l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s thr ee-j udge ** panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a s s is ta n c e in th e d e te rm in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

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

### F e b r u ary8,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT ORVI LL E T UCKER,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, N o. 06- 1415 v . (D . o f C o lo .) R . W I L E Y , W ar den,

R es pondent - A ppel l ee. ( D . C . N o . 0 6 - C V - 1 0 8 5 - Z L W)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , TY M KOVI CH , and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es. ** Pet i t i oner - A ppel l antO r vi l l e Tucker , a fe der al pr i s onerappea r i ng pr o s e, appea l s the di s m i s s al of hi s 28 U . S. C . § 2241 appl i cat i on chal l engi ng a pr i s on di s ci pl i naryconvi ct i on. Fors ubs t ant i al l ythe s ame r eas ons s etfor th bythe d istric t co u rt ju d g e , w e d e n yh is re q u e st a n d d ism iss th is a p p e a l.-2- I . Backg r ound T uckeri s i ncar cer at ed atthe U ni t ed St at es B ur eau of Pr i s ons i n Fl or ence , C o lorad o . T h rou g h h is § 2 2 4 1 p eti ti o n , T u ck er c h all en g es a p ri so n d isci p li n ary p roc ee d ing that resu lt ed in h is l o ss o f g o o d -t im e c red it s af ter he all eg ed lyset fire t o hi s pr i s on cel l . T uckerr ai s es one cl ai m as s ert i ng thathi s cons t i tut i onal due pr oces s r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed w hen the di s ci pl i naryhear i ng offi cer( D H O ) found hi m gui l tyw i thouts uffi ci entevi dence . Speci fi cal l y , T uckers ay s he nei ther admi t t ed t o norpl eade d gui l tyt o the cha r ge, and ther e i s no phot o orvi deo evi dence l i nki ng hi m t o the ac t . T uckeras ks thatthe fi ndi ngs of the D H O be re v e rs e d a n d h is g o o d -t im e c re d its b e re tu rn e d . II. A n alysi s W e re v ie w d e n o v o th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f a § 2 2 4 1 p e titio n . G r os s m an v. B r uce , 447 F. 3d 801, 804 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . Feder al i nm at es s uch as T u c k e r h a v e a lib e rt yin te re s t in g o o d -t im e c re d its . B ro w n v . Sm ith , 828 F. 2d 1 4 9 3 , 1 4 9 4 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 1 9 8 7 ) ( “ 1 8 U. S . C. § 4 1 6 1 c r e a t e s a r i g h tt o g o o d t i me cr edi t s and a de pr i vat i on of thatr i ghti s a depr i vat i on of l i berty . ”) W h en o ffici al pu n ishm en t i m p li ca tes a li b ertyinterest, p ri so n ers a re e n title d to s o m e d u e p ro c e s s p ro te c tio n s in th e irp ri s o n d is c ip lin a ry p ro c e e d in g s . T h e ya re n o t, ho w e v e r, en tit led to “ th e f u ll p a n o p lyo f

rig h ts d u e a d e fe n d a n t” in a c ri m in a l p ro s e c u tio n . Id . at805 ( ci t i ng Wo lff v . McD o n n e ll , 418 U . S. 539, 556 (19 7 4 )). We a g re e w ith th e d istric t co u rt’s c o n c lu sio n th a t T u c k e r w a s g ra n ted a ll-3-

of the due pr oces s pr ot ect i ons he w as due and thathi s cl ai m , ther efor e, i s w i thout m e ri t. T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s h e ld th e fo llo w in g to b e p re re q u isites o f a d e q u a te due pr oces s i n a pr i s on di s ci pl i naryhear i ng: ( 1) the pr i s onerm us tbe pr ovi ded w i th advanc e w r i t t en not i ce of the cha r ges ; ( 2) the pr i s onerm us thave a n o p p o rtu n ityto c a ll w itn e ss e s a n d p re se n t d o c u m e n tar ye v id e n c e if d o in g so w o u ld notcompromi s e i ns t i tut i onal s afe tyorcorr ect i onal goal s ; and ( 3) atthe cl os e of th e p ro c e e d in g s, th e p riso n e r m u st b e p ro v id e d a w ritten sta tem e n t se tti n g fo rth th e re a s o n s fo r t h e fa c t fin d e rs ’ d e c is io n a n d th e e v id e n c e o n w h ic h th e yre lie d . Wo lff , 418 U . S. at563–66 . See a lso Fogl e v. P i ers on , 4 3 5 F .3 d 1 2 5 2 , 1 2 5 9 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). In a d d it ion , d u e p roc ess re q u ir es a t l ea st “so m e e v iden ce ” to s u p p o rt a n ys a n c tio n s th a t a re u ltim a te ly le v e le d a g a in s t th e p ri s o n e r. Su p e rin ten d e n t, Ma ss . C o rr . In st. v . Hill , 4 7 2 U .S . 4 4 5 , 4 5 4 (1 9 8 5 ); Wi ls on v. Jones , 430 F. 3d 1 1 1 3 , 1 1 1 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T uckeronl yt akes i s s ue w i th the fi nal due pr oces s r equi r ementr efe r ence d above, ar gui ng pr i s on offi ci al s l acke d s uffi ci entevi dence t o s tr i p hi m of hi s goodtim e c re d its . A s cert ai ni ng w hether[the s om e evi dence ] s t andar d i s s at i s fi ed does not r equi r e exami nat i on of the ent i r e r ecor d, i ndepende ntas s es s m entof the cr edi bi l i tyof w i tnes s es , orw ei ghi ng of the evi dence . Instea d the r el e v a n tq u e s t i o n i s whe th e rth e r e i s a n ye v i d e n c e i n th e r e c o r d that coul d s uppor tthe conc l us i on r eac hed bythe di s ci pl i naryboar d. Hill , 4 7 2 U .S . at 4 5 5

– 5 6 ; Jones , 4 3 0 F .3 d a t 1 1 2 4 .-4-

T h e e v id e n c e o n re c o rd in T u c k e r’s c a se is c e rta in lya d e q u a te to m e e t th is s t andar d. Forexampl e, he att ache d the fol l ow i ng I nci dentR eportt o hi s § 2241 pet i t i on: O n 10/ 22/ 04 atappr ox. 6: 45 p. m . the B low erfi r e al arm w entoff. U p o n arriving at c e ll 0 3 -10 7 , o cc u p ied b yinm ate T u ck er, a fire c o n sis tin g o f

g o v e rn m e n t clo th in g , an d b e d d in g tied to th e in n e r g rill w a s d isc o v e re d . T h e sp rin k ler sy ste m h a d b e e n a c tiv a ted flo o d in g c e ll 30 7. T he T V , al l go vernm ent cl othi ng and bed ding, go vernm ent book s, an d the p aint o n the w all s w ere all d am ag ed . Inm ate T u ck er b rok e a p art hi s fourfood tr ay s i nt o num er ous pi ece s . O per at i ons L t . r es ponded and e x tin g u is h e d th e fir e u s in g a u n it fir e e x tin g u is h e r. Pet i t i on atE x. C . Si m i l ar l y , the D i s ci pl i ne H ear i ng O ffi cerR eportatt ache d t o the p e tit io n n o tes th a t T u c k e r su b m itt e d a w ritten sta tem e n t adm i t t i ngth e c h a rg e . Pet i t i on, E x. B at1. Fi nal l y , the O ffi cerR eportpr ovi ded t o T uckeraft erthe h e a rin g sta ted th a t th e D H O re lied o n th e fo llo w in g e v id e n c e in re a c h in g th e ir deci s i on: ( 1) the r eport i ng s t aff m ember ’ s s t at ement ; ( 2) T ucker ’ s or al and w r i t t en s t at ement s ; ( 3) a mem or andum from anothers t aff m embercorr obor at i ng the s t at ementof the r eport i ng offi cer ; and ( 4) the cos t - cent erm anage r ’ s es t i m at e of w h a t r e p a ira n d re p la c e m e n t w o u ld c o s t. P e titio n , E x . B a t 2

– 3 . A c c o rd in g ly , w e rejec t T u c k e r’s c laim th a t h e w a s d e n ied d u e p ro c e ss in h is p riso n d isc ip lin a ryh e a rin g o n th e b a sis th a t o fficia ls la c k e d e v id e n c e fo r th e ir fin d in g o f

h is g u ilt .-5- I I I . C oncl usi on Forthe r eas ons s etfor th above, w e denyT ucker ’ s pet i t i on for§ 2241 r el i ef and D I SM I SS t hi s appea l . I n addi t i on, w e D E N Y hi s r eques tt o pr ocee d i n f o r ma pa up eris as w e conc l ude thathi s appea l i s nott aken i n good fai th. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt T i m othyM . T ym kovi ch C i r cui tJ udge