Portley-El v. Steinbeck ( 2009 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
December 18, 2009
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK DURAY PORTLEY-EL,
Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 09-1297
v. (D. Colorado)
ROBERT STEINBECK; TIMOTHY (D.C. No. 1:06-CV-02096-MEH-MJW)
RITTER; CURTIS ROBINETTE; S.
ADKINS,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HARTZ, SEYMOUR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Patrick Portley-El appeals from the summary judgment entered by the
district court against him on his claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983 that he was denied
procedural due process in a disciplinary proceeding in the Arkansas Valley
Correctional Facility in Colorado. We affirm.
*
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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is
not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
As a result of the disciplinary proceeding, Mr. Portley-El lost some good-
time credits and was placed in punitive segregation for a period of time. He
sought relief in Colorado state court, which set aside and expunged the
disciplinary decision. He then brought several claims under §1983 in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado. The district court granted
summary judgment to the defendants. Mr. Portley-El appeals only the adverse
ruling on his procedural-due-process claim. He raises three arguments.
Mr. Portley-El’s first two arguments are founded on the state district-court
decision. He contends that this court must respect the state court’s decision that
he was denied due process and, in an interesting twist on the doctrine of Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), he contends that the judgment against him in
federal court improperly implies that the state-court decision was erroneous and
that his disciplinary conviction was valid. The first argument fails, however,
because nothing in the record indicates that the state court found a denial of
procedural due process under the United States Constitution. And the second
argument fails because there is no inconsistency between the decisions in the
federal district court and the state court; the state court could certainly set aside
the disciplinary conviction on grounds other than violation of federal due process.
Mr. Portley-El’s final argument is that the federal district court erred when
it decided that he was not entitled to procedural due process because he was not
subjected to conditions that constituted atypical and significant hardships for a
-2-
convicted prisoner. See Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). We agree
fully with the district court. As in Sandin itself, Mr. Portley-El has failed to show
significant differences between the punitive segregation to which he was
subjected and administrative segregation at the same prison. See id. at 486.
We AFFIRM the judgment below. Mr. Portley-El’s motion to proceed in
forma pauperis is GRANTED. We remind him of his obligation to make
payments on the filing fee until it is paid in full.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
-3-