Opinion ID: 215426
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: On appeal, Marshall asserts that the district court improperly dismissed his due process and equal protection claims. Further, because the district court erroneously dismissed his federal claims, Marshall contends that the district court should not have declined to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. We affirm the district court’s decision to dismiss Marshall’s due process and equal protection claims with prejudice. 4 As a result, we also affirm the district court’s decision to dismiss his state law claims without prejudice. 4 While the magistrate judge also determined that Marshall’s “claim for damages” should be dismissed pursuant to Heck and Edwards, we decline to consider this issue. See Jiron v. City of Lakewood, 392 F.3d 410, 413 n.1 (10th Cir. 2004) (noting that Heck is not jurisdictional). Because the district court dismissed Marshall’s equal protection and due process claims with prejudice, and because Heck would at best only support a dismissal without prejudice, we will analyze the substance of Marshall’s claims. See id. 9
“We review de novo a district court’s decision on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for dismissal for failure to state a claim.” 5 Alvarado v. KOB-TV, L.L.C., 493 F.3d 1210, 1215 (10th Cir. 2007). When reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “we look for plausibility in the complaint.” Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1218 (10th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). “In particular, we look to the specific allegations in the complaint to determine whether they plausibly support a legal claim for relief.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “Rather than adjudging whether a claim is ‘improbable,’ ‘[f]actual allegations [in a complaint] must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–56 (2007)). Because Marshall is proceeding pro se, “we must construe . . . [his] complaint liberally,” id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Nonetheless, parties proceeding pro se are “not relieve[d] . . . of the burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim could be based.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). 5 As Marshall had been proceeding in forma pauperis before the district court, the district court could have considered the adequacy of his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Regardless, “[w]e apply the same standard of review for dismissals under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) that we employ for . . . Rule . . . 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim.” Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2007). 10
Marshall contends that CCF Defendants and ODOC Defendants violated his due process rights during his disciplinary proceedings. We agree with the magistrate judge’s determination that Marshall failed to allege sufficient facts to establish that his disciplinary proceedings implicated a protected liberty interest. Thus, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed Marshall’s due process claim with prejudice. “The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from depriving citizens of liberty without due process of law.” Wilson v. Jones, 430 F.3d 1113, 1117 (10th Cir. 2005). Although this guarantee applies to prison inmates, “prisoners’ due process rights are defined more narrowly.” Id. In the prison context, the Supreme Court has established that protected liberty interests are at issue when the prison inmate is subjected to: (1) conditions that “impose atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life,” or (2) disciplinary actions that “inevitably affect the duration of his sentence.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 487 (1995); see also Wilson, 430 F.3d at 1117. When a protected liberty interest is implicated, procedural due process requires that a prison inmate facing a disciplinary hearing be provided: (1) advance written notice of the disciplinary charges; (2) an opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals, to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense; and (3) a written statement by the factfinder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action. 11 Hill, 472 U.S. at 454; see also Mitchell v. Maynard, 80 F.3d 1433, 1445 (10th Cir. 1996). In addition, the results from the prison disciplinary hearing must be supported by “some evidence in the record.” Hill, 472 U.S. at 455–56. Because we conclude that Marshall’s disciplinary proceedings did not implicate a protected liberty interest, we need not address the procedural deficiencies Marshall asserts or evaluate whether Marshall received adequate procedural due process. Marshall contends that his disciplinary proceedings implicated a protected liberty interest because: (1) his inmate classification level was reduced from level two to level one; (2) his misconduct conviction could negatively affect his parole consideration; and (3) ODOC policies and procedures were not followed. This court will consider each of these assertions in turn. First, Marshall argues that the reduction to his inmate classification level implicated a protected liberty interest. He explains that an inmate’s classification level controls not only the number of earned credits an inmate receives, but also an inmate’s eligibility for “numerous other things.” ROA, Vol. 1 at 13. Specifically, Marshall identifies that the change to an inmate’s classification level reduces the amount of monthly income he receives and results in the loss of an assortment of privileges. Id. at 11, 13. We conclude that the reduction to Marshall’s inmate classification level did not implicate a protected liberty interest. This court has previously concluded 12 that a mandatory reduction in the rate at which a prisoner earns good time credits based on a misconduct conviction implicates a prisoner’s protected liberty interest by “‘inevitably affect[ing] the duration of his sentence.’” Wilson, 430 F.3d at 1120 (quoting Sandin, 515 U.S. at 487). However, even assuming the reduction to his inmate classification level was mandatory as a result of his misconduct conviction, the fact that this change reduced the rate at which Marshall could receive earned credits had no effect on the duration of his sentence. Marshall’s sentence was subject to the 85% rule and, as a result, he was ineligible to receive earned credits. In fact, recognizing that he was not entitled to receive earned credits, Marshall explained that he “[was] not basing his entitlement to due process upon a claim related to earned credits.” ROA, Vol. 1 at 12. Thus, the reduction to his inmate classification level did not implicate a protected liberty interest in this regard. The privileges Marshall lost as a result of the reduction to his inmate classification level also did not constitute protected liberty interests because they did not impose “atypical and significant hardship[s] on [him] in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life,” Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484. Specifically, restrictions on an inmate’s telephone use, property possession, visitation and recreation privileges are not different in such degree and duration as compared with the ordinary incidents of prison life to constitute protected liberty interests under the Due Process Clause. Further, this court has previously held that 13 prisoners do not have a protected liberty interest in prison employment. See Penrod v. Zavaras, 94 F.3d 1399, 1407 (10th Cir. 1996). Second, the possibility that Marshall’s misconduct conviction could have a negative impact on his parole consideration did not implicate a protected liberty interest. As the Supreme Court explained in Sandin, “[t]he decision to release a prisoner rests on a myriad of considerations.” 515 U.S. at 487. Thus, even though a parole board may consider an inmate’s misconduct convictions as a relevant consideration when deciding whether to grant parole, “[t]he chance that [this] finding . . . will alter the balance is simply too attenuated to invoke the procedural guarantees of the Due Process Clause,” id. Third, Marshall contends that the failure to follow ODOC policies and procedures during his disciplinary proceedings implicated a protected liberty interest. He identifies that: (1) CCF Defendant Taylor failed to timely affirm his conviction pursuant to ODOC policy and procedure; (2) his disciplinary hearing was postponed without him receiving written notice in accordance with ODOC policy and procedure; and (3) he was held in segregation “for about 35 days longer than he should have been” according to ODOC policy and procedure. The Supreme Court has explained that “States may under certain circumstances create liberty interests which are protected by the Due Process Clause.” Sandin, 515 U.S. at 483–84. However, Marshall failed to allege sufficient facts to show that the deviations from ODOC policy and procedure he identifies imposed atypical 14 and significant hardships on him in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life or inevitably affected the duration of his sentence. See id. at 486 (concluding that placement in disciplinary segregation for thirty days “did not present the type of atypical, significant deprivation in which a State might conceivably create a liberty interest” because the conditions mirrored those of administrative segregation); cf. Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252, 1259 (10th Cir. 2006) (concluding that a prisoner’s confinement for “a three-year period on administrative segregation-during which time [he] was confined to his cell for all but five hours each week and denied access to any outdoor recreation-” was arguably atypical). Based on the allegations in his complaint, we conclude that Marshall’s disciplinary proceedings did not implicate a protected liberty interest. Thus, the district court properly dismissed his due process claim with prejudice.
Marshall argues that ODOC’s refusal to review his misconduct conviction due to his ineligibility to receive earned credits violated his equal protection rights. Specifically, he contends that ODOC treats inmates subject to the 85% rule differently than other inmates. Because we agree with the magistrate judge’s determination that Marshall failed to allege facts challenging the legitimate penological purposes for the different treatment, we affirm the district court’s decision to dismiss the equal protection claim with prejudice. To prevail on an equal protection claim, a plaintiff must show that the 15 government has treated him differently than others who were similarly situated. See Penrod, 94 F.3d at 1406. When the different treatment is not based on a suspect classification, the plaintiff must also allege sufficient facts to establish that “the distinction between himself and other inmates was not reasonably related to some legitimate penological purpose.” Templeman v. Gunter, 16 F.3d 367, 371 (10th Cir. 1994). Marshall did assert that inmates ineligible to receive earned credits were treated differently than other inmates. However, as the magistrate judge reasoned, inmates subject to the 85% rule are convicted of “particularly serious crimes,” and Marshall did not challenge the legitimate penological purposes for treating these inmates differently. ROA, Vol. 1 at 211–12. Marshall’s conclusory allegations on appeal that the distinction “was never part of a ‘legitimate penological purpose’”, Aplt. Br. at 7, are inadequate to state an equal protection claim. Thus, we affirm the district court’s decision to dismiss his equal protection claim with prejudice.