Williams v. Zavaras ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    Filed 9/19/96
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
    ______
    GEORGE WILLIAMS,                   )
    )
    Plaintiff-Appellant,          )
    )
    v.                                 )                               No. 96-1100
    )                          (D.C. No. 95-S-1030)
    ARISTEDES W. ZAVARAS, Director of )                             (Dist. of Colo.)
    Department of Correction; R.L.     )
    HENDERSON, Warden/Superintendent   )
    of Centennial Facility, and all    )
    others who are employees under his )
    control at Centennial Correction   )
    Facility; SUS JONES, Disciplinary )
    Hearing Chairman; R. GAUNT, Lt.,   )
    Board Member; K. SLUDER, Board     )
    Member; CT. PONTIUS, Investigation )
    Interviewing Supervisor; CT. ALLEN,)
    First Shift Security Supervisor;   )
    LT. COMBS, Living Unit B Super-    )
    visor; LT. BARRDESSONA, Segregation)
    Living Unit A Supervisor; B. FAHEY,)
    Sgt. Segregation Living Unit A;    )
    JOHN CAROLL, Lt., Case Manager,    )
    )
    Defendants-Appellees.         )
    ______
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
    ______
    Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
    ______
    *
    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of
    the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders
    and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions
    of Tenth Cir. R. 36.3.
    After examining the briefs and the 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); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered
    submitted without oral argument.
    George   Williams      (Williams),     an   inmate   of    the   Colorado
    Department of Corrections (DOC), appearing pro se, appeals from the
    district court’s order accepting the Recommendation of the United
    States magistrate judge and dismissing his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action.
    Williams filed his pro se complaint against named defendants,
    employees of the DOC, in their official and individual capacities,
    alleging that the defendants at the Centennial Colorado Facility,
    as members of the Disciplinary Hearing Board and/or Administrative
    Appeals Board, had violated his constitutional rights following
    charges made against him that he had assaulted a staff member and
    interfered with execution of a search warrant.                   In a rambling
    fashion, Williams contended that he had been denied a fair and
    impartial hearing and denied due process of law.                 He prayed that
    the district court “ . . . issue an order directing defendants to
    reverse the finding of guilty, dismiss these charges, reinstate any
    earn or good time, expugn all reports relating to said violation
    from Plaintiff’s files.        Restore all programs, privileges and jobs
    lost   as   a   result   of   this   action    and   remove      Plaintiff   from
    Administrative Segregation.”         (R., Vol. I, Tab 3, p. 27).
    -2-
    The     district       court,    in      accepting    the   magistrate’s
    Recommendation, pointed to Sandin v. Conner, 
    115 S. Ct. 2293
     (1995)
    and observed that the Williams’ case facts are very similar.                   In
    Sandin, the Supreme Court found that “punishment of incarcerated
    prisoners    .    .   .    effectuates prison management and            prisoner
    rehabiliative         goals,”   
    id. at 2301
    ,   and   punishment    for   a
    disciplinary violation creates a liberty interest only when “it
    imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation
    to the ordinary incidents of prison life.”            
    Id. at 2300
    .   The Court
    held that prison regulations are “not designed to confer rights on
    inmates.”    
    Id. at 2299
    .
    On appeal, Williams contends that the district court erred in
    concluding that his allegations did not implicate a constitutional
    liberty interest, citing to Wolff v. McDonnell, 
    418 U.S. 539
     (1974)
    for the proposition that he was entitled to all due process,
    including calling of witnesses.            In Wolff, unlike the case at bar,
    Nebraska laws bestowed mandatory sentence reduction for good time
    behavior, revocable only for “flagrant or serious misconduct.” 
    418 U.S. at 545
    .          Further, Wolff held that the accused in a prison
    disciplinary proceeding has no right to confront and cross-examine
    witnesses.       
    Id. at 570
    .
    Williams requests that we remand for an evidentiary hearing
    concerning his allegations that the DOC Disciplinary Board employed
    unfair procedures which denied him due process of law.
    -3-
    On appeal, from an order dismissing a complaint pursuant to
    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b)(6), we must, accepting the allegations as
    true, dismiss if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can
    prove no set of facts entitling him to relief.        Scheuer v. Rhodes,
    
    416 U.S. 232
     (1974); Roman v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 
    55 F.3d 542
    , 543
    (10th    Cir.   1995).    All   well-pleaded   factual   allegations,     as
    distinguished     from   conclusory    allegations,   set   forth   in   the
    complaint are to be accepted as true and viewed in the light most
    favorable to the plaintiff.      Hall v. Bellmon, 
    935 F.2d 1106
    , 1109-
    10 (10th Cir. 1991).       Pro se complaints must be held to “less
    stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”
    Meade v. Grubbs, 
    841 F.2d 1512
    , 1526 (10th Cir. 1988) (quoting
    Haines v. Kerner, 
    404 U.S. 519
    , 520 (1972).
    We have reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal.        Under
    the rationale of Sandin, Williams has failed to set forth any
    factual allegations establishing a protected liberty interest.           We
    affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the magistrate
    judge’s Recommendation of October 17, 1995.
    Entered for the Court:
    James E. Barrett,
    Senior United States
    Circuit Judge
    -4-