F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
December 7, 2005
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
LARRY WILSON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
No. 02-6384
v.
JUSTIN JONES, Director of the
Oklahoma Department of
Corrections; ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
OKLAHOMA,
Respondents-Appellees. *
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
(D.C. No. CIV-02-0301-F)
Vicki Mandell-King, Assistant Federal Public Defender (Raymond P. Moore,
Federal Public Defender, and Howard A. Pincus, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, on the briefs), for Petitioner-Appellant.
Larry Wilson filed a brief pro se.
*
Pursuant to F ED .R.A PP .P. 43(c)(2), Justin Jones, Ron Ward’s successor at
the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, has been automatically substituted as a
party in this appeal.
Keeley L. Harris, Assistant Attorney General (W. A. Drew Edmondson, Attorney
General of Oklahoma, and Kellye Bates, Assistant Attorney General, with her on
the briefs), for Respondents-Appellees.
Before HENRY, HOLLOWAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
HENRY, Circuit Judge.
Larry Wilson, an Oklahoma State inmate incarcerated at the Great Plains
Correctional Facility, appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ
of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Mr. Wilson alleges that
his due process rights were violated when a Class X misconduct conviction
caused him to be demoted from a credit-earning prisoner to a non-credit-earning
prisoner because no evidence supported the misconduct conviction. We agree
with Mr. Wilson, and reverse and remand for issuance of the writ.
I. BACKGROUND
Mr. Wilson’s problem began with what seems an innocuous or even
laudable action: he attempted to use his mandatory savings account to pay for the
costs associated with copying the court documents he needed to pursue a post-
conviction proceeding. Because of that attempt, he was charged with violating
Oklahoma law, subjected to prison disciplinary proceedings, and convicted of a
2
Class X misconduct. The Class X misconduct conviction triggered two automatic
and mandatory consequences. First, Mr. Wilson was demoted from a class-level-
four prisoner, earning 44 credits each month toward early release, to a class-level-
one prisoner, ineligible to earn any credits. Second, the Class X misconduct made
him ineligible for promotion beyond level two, where he could earn only 22
credits each month, for a period of two years. To understand fully the misconduct
conviction and its effects on Mr. Wilson, first we examine the Oklahoma law he
was accused of violating, the details of the misconduct conviction and its
consequences, and how those consequences led to Mr. Wilson’s petition in this
court.
A. Oklahoma Law Regarding Use of Mandatory Savings Accounts
Prisoners in Oklahoma are required to keep a mandatory savings account, in
which they must deposit twenty percent of the wages they earn from prison
employment. They may only access the account to pay “fees or costs in filing a
civil or criminal action as defined in Section 151 et seq. of Title 28 of the
Oklahoma Statutes.” O KLA . S TAT . tit. 57, § 549(A)(5) (2004). Section 151(A), in
turn, provides that district court clerks shall “charge and collect the fees imposed
by this title, [and] fines, costs and assessments imposed by the district court or
appellant courts.” O KLA . S TAT . tit. 28, § 151(A) (2004). Our court has recently
concluded that Oklahoma inmates can use mandatory savings accounts to pay any
3
fee, fine, cost or assessment imposed by any section of Title 28 of the Oklahoma
Statutes. Included under Title 28 and payable by a mandatory savings account are
“photocopy charges imposed by a court clerk for obtaining official records and
transcripts.” Gamble v. Calbone, 375 F.3d 1021, 1029 (10th Cir. 2004) (citing
O KLA . S TAT . tit. 28, § 31).
Despite the broad sweep of section 151(A) and the inclusion of copying
costs in Title 28, when Mr. Wilson followed the usual procedures and requested,
in writing from the proper prison authorities, the release of $170 from his
mandatory savings account to pay for copies of proceedings in his criminal
conviction for use in his post-conviction appeal, the private prison officials
charged him with a Class X misconduct. Any violation of city, state, or federal
law constitutes a Class X misconduct, “the most serious class of prison
misconduct.” Gamble, 375 F.3d at 1025 n.4; Okla. Dep’t of Corr. (DOC) Policy
OP-060125, Attachment A. Here, prison officials accused Mr. Wilson of
violating Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1541.1, which prohibits obtaining money under
false pretenses. The only evidence for the charge was the written form Mr.
Wilson had submitted to prison officials. On the form, he requested payment
from his account “to attain transcripts and court documents from Murray County
Court Clerk.” Rec. vol. I, doc. 2, Ex. B (Request to Staff, Oct. 9, 2001).
4
B. Misconduct Conviction and its Consequences
After a hearing, prison officials determined that Mr. Wilson had violated
section 1541.1 and punished him by (1) revoking 180 of his earned credits and (2)
imposing thirty days’ disciplinary segregation. For reasons unclear on this record,
Mr. Wilson’s punishments were immediately suspended for 90 days. The State
represented in its supplemental brief that, because the 90 days expired without
incident, “the 180 credits can never be revoked.” Aples’ Supl. Br. at 3 (Mar. 14,
2005).
Pursuant to DOC policy, any Class X misconduct conviction triggers
certain “[m]andatory sanctions [that] cannot be suspended.” Okla. DOC Policy
OP-060125(IV)(E) (emphasis added). Here, the Class X misconduct conviction
resulted in Mr. Wilson’s mandatory reclassification from a class-level-four
prisoner to a class-level-one prisoner, as required by the Oklahoma DOC’s
prisoner classification procedures. Okla. DOC Policy OP-060107(I)(C)(2)(a)(5)
(stating that “[l]evel I assignment is mandatory . . . [u]pon conviction for any
misconduct, effective the date of the misconduct”). While a class-level-four
prisoner, Mr. Wilson automatically earned 44 credits per month toward early
release, but as a class-level-one prisoner, Mr. Wilson was statutorily ineligible to
earn any credits. O KLA . S TAT . tit. 57, § 138(D)(2).
Mr. Wilson was required to spend thirty days at level one. Okla. DOC
5
Policy OP-060107(I)(C)(6). After that time, Mr. Wilson was promoted to level
two, where he remained for one year until he received another misconduct
conviction. Rec. vol. 1, doc. 10, Ex. A (Aples’ Resp. to Pet., filed May 7, 2002);
Aples’ Supl. Br., Ex. D.
Prisoners are automatically assigned to level two upon reception into the
prison system. Okla. DOC Policy OP-060107(I)(C)(2)(b). Ordinarily, an
adjustment review committee of at least three prison officials reviews an inmate’s
classification at least once every four months to determine whether a change in
classification is necessary because a prisoner has met (or failed to meet) certain
statutory criteria. O KLA . S TAT . tit. 57, § 138(F). The statutory classification
system provides for classification between levels one and four depending on the
factors listed in the statute, some of which are objective, such as the length of
incarceration, and some of which require an exercise of prison officials’
subjective judgment and discretion, such as whether a prisoner’s hygiene has been
“outstanding” or merely “good.” See id. § 138(D)(3)&(4). Once a prisoner is
classified at a particular level, the prisoner is statutorily entitled to earn a
specified number of credits. Id. Regardless of whether Mr. Wilson continued to
meet the statutory criteria for promotion to levels three or four, the Class X
conviction caused Mr. Wilson to become ineligible for promotion beyond class
level two for a period of two years. Okla. DOC Policy OP-060107(I)(C)(2)(c) &
6
(d); Okla. DOC Policy OP-060103(a)(M).
C. Procedural History
As a result of the misconduct conviction and its automatic, mandatory
consequences, Mr. Wilson filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge the misconduct conviction. He contends that the
misconduct conviction violated his due process rights because it was unsupported
by evidence. The magistrate judge recommended that Mr. Wilson’s petition be
denied because (1) Mr. Wilson never actually lost any earned credits, and (2) the
demotion in class level did not implicate a constitutionally protected “liberty
interest sufficient to invoke the procedural protections of the due process clause.”
Rec. vol. I, doc. 12, at 4 (Rep. & Rec., filed May 7, 2002). The district court
adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation without further opinion. Mr.
Wilson then filed an application for a certificate of appealability (COA). See 28
U.S.C. § 2253. In 2003, we granted Mr. Wilson’s application for a COA on three
issues: (1) whether Mr. Wilson properly exhausted his state-court remedies; (2)
whether his reclassification deprived him of a constitutionally protected liberty
interest; and (3) if so, whether the reclassification violated his due process rights
because there was insufficient evidence to prove his alleged misconduct.
Subsequent to the district court’s decision, this court, in Gamble v.
Calbone, granted habeas relief to two prisoners from the same prison as Mr.
7
Wilson, who had also been convicted of the same Class X misconduct based on
the same “evidence” as Mr. Wilson. 375 F.3d 1021 (10th Cir. 2004). We ordered
that the State provide additional briefing in light of Gamble on the issue of
whether Mr. Wilson’s suspended punishment could ever be reinstated. After
receipt of the supplemental brief, we ordered oral argument and the appointment
of a federal public defender to represent Mr. Wilson.
.
II. DISCUSSION
The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from depriving citizens of
liberty without due process of law. Although their due process rights are defined
more narrowly, that guarantee applies to prisoners as well. Thus, in Sandin v.
Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 487 (1995), the Supreme Court concluded that a
prisoner is entitled to due process before he is subjected to conditions that
“impose atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary
incidents of prison life,” or disciplinary actions that “inevitably affect the
duration of his sentence. See also Talley v. Hesse, 91 F.3d 1411, 1414 (10th Cir.
1996) (discussing these two ways of establishing a liberty interest under Sandin).
As a general rule, before officials may take actions that affect these
protected liberty interests, they must afford a prisoner (a) advance written notice
8
of the charges; (b) an opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety and
correctional goals, to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his
defense; and (c) a written statement by the factfinder of the evidence relied upon
on and the reasons for the disciplinary action. Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst.
at Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985). In addition, the decision must be
supported by some evidence. Id.
In this appeal, Mr. Wilson contends that: (a) requiring state-court
exhaustion in this type of habeas appeal is futile; (b) his Class X misconduct
conviction inevitably affected the length of his sentence and thus infringed a
liberty interest; and (c) no evidence supported that conviction. As a result, he
concludes, prison officials violated his due process rights. Each of these issues
involves questions of law, and our review is thus de novo. See Gamble, 375 F.3d
at 1027 (sufficiency of the evidence); Miller v. Menghini, 213 F.3d 1244, 1246
(10th Cir. 2000) (exhaustion); Harper v. Young, 64 F.3d 563, 566 (10th Cir. 1995)
(existence of a liberty interest). For the reasons set forth below, we are persuaded
by Mr. Wilson’s arguments as to all three issues.
A. Exhaustion of Remedies
A habeas petitioner seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is generally
required to exhaust state remedies. Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 865 (10th
9
Cir. 2000). However, that requirement is not applicable when the prisoner has no
adequate remedy such that exhaustion would be futile. Gamble, 375 F.3d at 1026.
In Gamble, we explained that a prisoner “seeking speedier . . . release due
to alleged errors in calculating earned or good-time credits does not have an
adequate habeas remedy under Oklahoma law, and that requiring state exhaustion
would be futile.” Id. at 1026 (citing Wallace v. Cody, 951 F.2d 1170, 1172 (10th
Cir. 1991)). Moreover, prisoners in Oklahoma cannot file a direct judicial appeal
to the state courts challenging a disciplinary board decision regarding their
earned-credit status. Id. (citing Canady v. Reynolds, 880 P.2d 391, 396-97 & n.4
(Okla. Crim. App. 1994)). As a result, we concluded that the prisoners there were
not required to seek relief in state court, and we therefore proceeded to the merits
of their due process claims.
Here, the State conceded during oral argument that Mr. Wilson has
exhausted his administrative remedies, and in its briefs, argued only that Mr.
Wilson had not exhausted his state-court remedies. Because of our holding in
Gamble that requiring state exhaustion is “futile,” Mr. Wilson has satisfied all
exhaustion requirements associated with this type of habeas claim and his petition
is properly before this court. Therefore, we proceed to the merits of his due
process claim.
10
B. Liberty Interest
Invoking Sandin, Mr. Wilson argues that his Class X misconduct conviction
“inevitably affect[ed] the duration of [his] sentence,” 515 U.S. at 487, and thus
implicated a liberty interest. He reasons that the conviction mandatorily reduced
the rate at which he earned good time credits, and argues that this impact was
sufficient for this court to grant relief in Gamble. In response, the State contends
that despite Mr. Wilson’s improper Class X misconduct conviction, prison
officials retained discretion to change his classification—and the resulting rate at
which he would earn good time credits. According to the State, that discretion
demonstrates that the effect of the Class X misconduct conviction was not
inevitable and that, as a result, no liberty interest was implicated. Resolution of
this issue requires an examination of Sandin, subsequent decisions applying it,
and other Tenth Circuit due process cases.
1. Sandin
Sandin involved an inmate from Hawaii’s state prison who alleged that two
misconduct convictions violated his due process rights. 515 U.S. at 475-76. He
was convicted of one “high misconduct” and one “low moderate misconduct,” and
the high misconduct charge was later reversed and expunged from his record. Id.
at 475-76, 487 n.10. The Court noted that the Hawaii parole board was not
11
required to deny parole as a result of the misconduct charges: “even though
misconduct is by regulation a relevant consideration, . . . [t]he decision to release
a prisoner rests on a myriad of considerations.” Id. at 487. Therefore, the Court
reasoned, the misconduct conviction did not inevitably affect the duration of the
prisoner’s sentence: “[t]he chance that a finding of misconduct will alter the
balance is simply too attenuated to invoke the procedural guarantees of the Due
Process Clause.” Id. The Court implied that if the parole board had been
required to take particular actions as a result of the misconduct charge, its
decision might have been different: “we note that Hawaii expunged [the inmate’s]
record with respect to the ‘high misconduct’ charge, so he personally has no
chance of receiving a delayed release as a direct result of that allegation.” Id. at
487 n.10.
As the Fifth Circuit has noted, “a host of administrative or disciplinary
decisions made by prison authorities might somehow affect the timing of a
prisoner’s release.” See Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1995).
However, many of these decisions do not trigger the protections of the due
process clause. For example, applying Sandin, a number of courts have
concluded that a decision that a particular prisoner is ineligible to participate in
certain programs does not implicate a protected liberty interest, even though
participation in those programs would have provided him with an opportunity to
12
earn good time credits at a higher rate. In these courts’ view, the effect of the
challenged decisions on the length of the prisoner’s sentence is “too attenuated”
to implicate a liberty interest. See, e.g, Zimmerman v. Tribble, 226 F.3d 568,
571-72 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding that a prisoner’s transfer to a facility that did not
offer vocational training and substance abuse programs did not implicate a liberty
interest, even though the transfer resulting in the loss of an opportunity to earn
good time credits); Higgason v. Farley, 83 F.3d 807, 809-10 (7th Cir. 1996)
(holding that a prisoner’s placement in segregation, which resulted in the loss of
access to educational programs and the resulting opportunity to earn good time
credits did not implicate liberty interest, reasoning that “even if [the prisoner”]
has been given the opportunity, it was not inevitable that he would complete an
educational program and earn good time credits”); Bulger v. U.S. Bureau of
Prisons, 65 F.3d 48, 50 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that the loss of a prison job did
not implicate a prisoner’s liberty interest even though the prisoner lost the ability
to automatically accrue good-time credits).
2. Tenth Circuit Decisions
This circuit has indicated that the connection between a disciplinary
decision and the length of a prisoner’s sentence may be sufficient to establish a
liberty interest when the prisoner establishes that the decision was the only factor
13
that lengthened the sentence. See Reed v. McKune, 298 F.3d 946, 954 (10th Cir.
2002) (noting that, under Sandin, “deprivations of process impacting on parole
decisions may be ‘too attenuated to invoke the procedural guarantees of the Due
Process Clause,’” but that “[petitioner’s] claim that he is being denied parole
solely on the basis of his failure to participate in [a treatment program] is not so
attenuated” and that, as a result, the petitioner “might, therefore, potentially state
a due process violation”) (quoting Sandin, 515 U.S. at 487) (emphasis added).
We have also held that there are circumstances in which the reduction of
the rate at which a prisoner earns good time credits may trigger due process
protections. For example, in Chambers v. Colorado Dep’t of Corrections, 205
F.3d 1237, 1242 (10th. Cir. 2000), Colorado prison officials classified the
petitioner as a sex offender for five years but then reduced the rate at which he
earned good time credits after he refused to participate in a treatment program.
We concluded that “[prison officials] provided [the petitioner] [with] a liberty
interest in the consequences of the mandatory label which they then arbitrarily
removed without affording him any opportunity to a hearing to challenge the
label.” Id. at 1243 (emphasis deleted). We characterized “the consequences of the
[sex offender] label,” (i e., the opportunity to earn good time credits at a higher
rate) as “a benefit that cannot be taken away without some process.” Id.
In Gamble we found due process protections implicated in circumstances
14
closely resembling the facts here. The petitioners, both inmates from the Great
Plains Correctional Facility, had attempted to use their mandatory savings
accounts to pay for costs associated with the appeals of their criminal convictions.
Gamble, 375 F.3d at 1032. Like Mr. Wilson, the petitioners had been convicted
of a Class X law violation, “[o]btaining money under false pretenses,” and the
only evidence against each of them was a copy of the inmates’ check requests.
See id. at 1024-25. Unlike Mr. Wilson, neither of the Gamble inmates’
punishments was suspended and both inmates lost earned credits as a result of the
misconduct conviction. However, one of the petitioners had additionally
complained that the misconduct conviction resulted in his demotion from level
four to level one. Id. at 1025.
We concluded that the Class X violation was supported by no evidence and
that, as a result, the petitioners’ due process rights had been violated. See id. at
1031-32. Significantly, as a remedy for this due process violation, we directed
prison officials to reverse the misconduct convictions, expunge the convictions
from the petitioners’ records, restore all earned credits that had been revoked, and
restore “their former statuses in earning credits.” Id. at 1032.
In Gamble, we did not discuss whether the revocation of earned credits or
the reduction in credit-earning status (from level four to level one) implicated the
petitioners’ liberty interests. “It is well settled” that an inmate must be afforded
15
due process prior to the revocation of his earned credits. Mitchell v. Maynard, 80
F.3d 1433, 1444 (10th Cir. 1996). Mr. Wilson contends that, because we
additionally restored the prisoners’ pre-misconduct classification statuses in
Gamble, we implicitly held that a prisoner’s mandatory classification demotion
constitutes a liberty deprivation. Although we disagree with Mr. Wilson’s
characterization of our holding in Gamble, we believe that the remedy we granted
does assist our analysis of Mr. Wilson’s claim under Sandin. Given that the
Gamble prisoners filed a § 2241 habeas petition, our restoration of credit-earning
status suggests that a demotion resulting from a misconduct conviction has a
direct, unattenuated impact on the duration of a prisoner’s confinement. See 28
U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) (“The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner
unless . . . [h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of
the United States”); see also McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 812
(10th Cir. 1997) (explaining that a habeas petition under § 2241 may be granted
only if the challenged state action “affect[ed] the . . . duration of the petitioner’s
custody”).
3. Mr. Wilson’s Misconduct Conviction
Upon review of Mr. Wilson’s Class X misconduct conviction, we now
expressly adopt the conclusion that Gamble suggests and Sandin requires: the
16
misconduct conviction infringed a liberty interest because it reduced his credit
earning class in a manner that “inevitably affect[ed] the duration of his sentence.
Sandin, 515 U.S. at 487. As we have noted, as a direct result of the Class X
misconduct conviction, Mr. Wilson was automatically demoted from a level-four
credit earning classification to level one. Moreover, Oklahoma DOC policy
prohibited Mr. Wilson from being considered for promotion beyond level two for
a period of two years. Prison officials exercised absolutely no discretion over the
imposition of these two punishments and had no discretion to allow Mr. Wilson to
avoid them. Okla. DOC Policies OP-060107(I)(C)(2)(a)(5); OP-
060107(I)(C)(2)(c) & (d); OP-060103(a)(M). Thus, Mr. Wilson lost more than a
mere opportunity to earn credits upon satisfactory completion of a job or program
in the future. See Zimmerman v. Tribble, 226 F.3d at 571-72; Higgason, 83 F.3d
at 809-10; Bulger, 65 F.3d at 50.
That lack of discretion contrasts markedly with the discretionary effect on
the prisoner’s chances of parole in Sandin, where the disciplinary infraction was
only one of “a myriad of considerations,” 515 U.S. at 487, that could affect
whether the prisoner received an early release. In Mr. Wilson’s case, the only
consideration in his demotion and prevention from promotion was the misconduct
conviction. These effects were not the result of prison officials’ discretion after
they considered a number of factors; rather they occurred solely, automatically,
17
and mandatorily because of the misconduct conviction. This “but for” causation
is the kind of “direct result” that Sandin requires for a disciplinary action to have
an inevitable effect on a sentence. See 515 U.S. at 487 n.10.
We find additional support for this conclusion in the Seventh Circuit’s
opinion in Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2001). There, the
Seventh Circuit held that Indiana prisoners are deprived of liberty when demoted
to a lower credit-earning status. The court cited Supreme Court decisions holding
that prisoners may have a liberty interest in the expectation of parole where the
parole boards’ discretion is limited by mandatory language in a statute or a
regulation. Writing for the panel, Judge Easterbrook analogized the opportunity
to earn credits toward early release to those parole cases, noting that “[a] hope to
be released before the expiration of one’s term on good-time credits is no
different in principle from a hope to be released on parole.” Id. at 645. Judge
Easterbrook examined the statute at issue and noted that it required prisoners to
be assigned to a credit-earning class unless certain events occurred, thus
“curtail[ing] administrators’ discretion and . . . giv[ing] prisoners more than a
subjective hope of receiving day-for-day credit.” Id. The impact of a demotion in
class level on the prisoner’s sentence was directly traceable and clearly evident:
but for the demotion, the prisoner would have continued to earn credits. See id.
Thus, the Indiana statute created a liberty interest.
18
4. The State’s Arguments
In maintaining that Mr. Wilson’s conviction did not implicate a liberty
interest, the State advances several arguments. We find none of them persuasive.
First, the State notes that prison officials have discretion to change an
inmate’s classification status. It contends that prison officials could have used
that discretion to change Mr. Wilson’s classification at any time and that, as a
result, the misconduct conviction did not inevitably affect his sentence. In our
view, the State ignores the fact that Mr. Wilson’s conviction resulted in a
mandatory change in credit-earning status. In light of that mandatory effect, the
fact that prison officials have discretion to change a prisoner’s classification when
considering other conduct is irrelevant. As Judge Easterbrook observed in
Montgomery, states have been held to create liberty interests in the expectation of
early release even where the statute at issue “afforded plenty of discretion” to
prison administrators. Id.; see also Bd. of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369, 375-76
(1987) (explaining that an official “has discretion if his duty is defined by
standards that reasonable [people] can interpret in different ways” and that “the
presence of official discretion in this sense is not incompatible with the existence
of a liberty interest in parole release when release is required after the Board
determines (in its broad discretion) that the necessary prerequisites exist”)
19
(quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original).
The State also directs us to a number of unpublished cases in this circuit
that are somewhat similar to Mr. Wilson’s case, although all but one pre-date
Gamble. Those cases generally hold that a demotion in classification status does
not necessarily implicate a liberty interest. Although we are not bound by these
unpublished orders, we believe that they are distinguishable from the present
case.
In Hudson v. Ward, the one post-Gamble case that the State cites, the
classification demotion did not occur mandatorily as a result of a misconduct
conviction but rather resulted from an ordinary exercise of prison officials’
discretion. 124 F.App’x 599, 601-02 (10th Cir. Feb. 14, 2005) (unpublished); see
also Smith v. Okla. Dep’t of Corr., 98 F.3d 1350 (10th Cir. Oct. 8, 1996)
(unpublished) (holding that a loss of job for unsatisfactory performance, which
resulted in a demotion in credit-earning status, does not implicate a liberty
interest); Brown v. Champion, 61 F.3d 915 (10th Cir. July 24, 1995)
(unpublished) (stating that the reclassification that resulted from a misconduct
conviction was “entirely discretionary with prison officials”). Davis v. Ward
presents a situation that is much like Mr. Wilson’s case, but Davis was a pre-
Gamble decision that could not take into account the published opinion’s decision
to restore prisoners’ former credit-earning statuses, nor did it consider the
20
mandatory character of the prison regulation that removes discretion from prison
officials. 1 92 F.App’x 634, 635-36 (10th Cir. Feb. 9, 2004) (unpublished).
Finally, the State urges us to follow Templeman v. Gunter, 16 F.3d 367
(10th Cir. 1994), a published case that the magistrate judge cited in her
recommendation that Mr. Wilson did not suffer a liberty deprivation. Templeman
analyzed Colorado law and held that when a prisoner was transferred to
administrative segregation, he was not deprived of a liberty interest because the
regulation governing such a transfer stated that transfer was within “the sound
exercise of discretion by the classification officer.” Id. at 369. The prison
regulation listed a few factors officials should consider prior to transfer, but
specified that “the list is not exhaustive and includes any other reasons of similar
magnitude deemed sufficient.” Id. (citation and quotation omitted). Again,
because prison officials had the discretion to reclassify the prisoner into
administrative segregation, and “[o]nce there, Templeman did not meet the
criteria for receiving earned time,” the prisoner was not deprived of a liberty
interest. Id. at 370.
1
Another unpublished decision not cited by the State implied that
Gamble’s remedy should impact an analysis of whether a reclassification that
results from an improper misconduct conviction deprives a prisoner of a liberty
interest. See Cook v. Ward, 122 F.App’x. 935, 937 n.5 (10th Cir. Dec. 14, 2004)
(unpublished) (instructing prisoner to seek “administrative relief with respect to
retroactive reinstatement of level 4 credits” and noting that “in Gamble . . . this
court awarded a full restoration of benefits upon a finding of the denial of due
process and no evidence to support misconduct convictions”).
21
Templeman is significantly different from the instant case in several
respects. First, Templeman analyzed an entirely different set of regulations than
those that Oklahoma prison officials use. Second, unlike in Colorado, where
officials had nearly unbridled discretion to transfer the prisoner, Oklahoma’s
prison officials must follow statutory and regulatory criteria when deciding
whether to reclassify a prisoner. Finally, this court in Templeman relied upon the
fact that the Colorado officials “reasonably concluded that inmates in
administrative segregation do not meet . . . the criteria for receiving earned time.”
Id. Certainly prison officials’ exercises of discretion should generally be
respected, as “federal courts ought to afford appropriate deference and flexibility
to state officials trying to manage a volatile environment.” Sandin, 515 U.S. at
482. Nonetheless, as we have repeatedly stressed, Mr. Wilson’s reclassification
did not occur because of an exercise of discretion, but rather was an automatic
and mandatory sanction resulting from an erroneous misconduct conviction.
Accordingly, following Sandin, and for the reasons reviewed above, we
hold that the Class X misconduct inevitably affected the duration of Mr. Wilson’s
sentence and therefore deprived him of a liberty interest. Because of this
deprivation, we now examine whether the underlying misconduct conviction
comported with due process
22
C. Misconduct Conviction
The Supreme Court has instructed that, when reviewing a prison
disciplinary proceeding, courts should determine whether “any evidence in the
record . . . could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.” Hill,
472 U.S. at 455-56. We applied this deferential standard of review in Gamble and
held that no evidence supported the petitioners’ misconduct convictions. After
examining section 1541.1, we concluded that, in order to affirm the misconduct
conviction for obtaining money by false pretenses under the “any evidence”
standard, “there must be evidence that the inmates attempted to obtain money by
means of a trick, deception, or false representation. It is necessary that they knew
it was a trick, deception, or false representation, and that they had the intent to
cheat and defraud.” Gamble, 375 F.3d at 1028.
The State has agreed that the decision in Gamble controls here and has
acknowledged that no evidence exists to support Mr. Wilson’s conviction. We
appreciate this concession and hope that, in light of Gamble and the instant
matter, the Oklahoma DOC will carefully oversee disciplinary proceedings and
review its policies for ambiguities and contradictions so that such clearly
problematic disciplinary actions are cured in an administrative setting, as they
should be. As we noted in Gamble, “[t]he inmates’ understanding that requesting
disbursement from their mandatory savings for the costs of obtaining their
23
transcripts was a legal request is justified under Oklahoma case precedent and
legislative history.” Id. at 1030.
The Oklahoma DOC policy in effect in 2001 regarding the use of a
mandatory savings account was contradictory and confusing, especially in light of
the state legislature’s specific allowance for this one class of expenditures from
mandatory savings accounts. 2 Indeed, amendments that the state legislature made
in 1995, permitting inmates to use mandatory savings accounts for costs
associated with criminal cases and requiring courts to consider the availability of
a mandatory savings account prior to granting in forma pauperis, “‘compel[] a
prisoner to weigh the validity of a lawsuit against the cost of pursuing it.’” Id. at
1031 (quoting Smith v. Moore, 50 P.3d 215, 218 n.4 (Okla. 2002)). The
legislature’s policy makes good sense: it alleviates public subsidization of court
costs and deters prisoners from filing frivolous lawsuits, as they must use the
small amount of savings they would have upon release from prison to pay for
costs associated with their appeals. See id. Furthermore, “[i]t would make little
sense to allow savings account monies to be used to file a case and then forbid
their use to provide courts with materials useful in resolving that case.” Id. at
2
The policy stated correctly that “allowable fees are defined in O.S. 28,
Section 151 et seq” but later, narrowed the range of allowable fees by calling
them simply “filing fees,” implying that filing fees were the only acceptable costs
that could be paid from a mandatory savings account. Okla. DOC Policy OP-
120230.
24
1033 (Henry, J., concurring).
Due process in a prison setting is very limited, but some safeguards remain
to ensure that the few rights prisoners do retain are not violated by prison
officials’ arbitrary exercise of their power. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539
(1974) (explaining that limited due process rights apply in a prison disciplinary
setting because “there must be mutual accommodation between institutional needs
and objectives and the provisions of the Constitution that are of general
application”). Among these safeguards is the requirement that disciplinary
convictions that mandatorily affect time served be supported by some evidence,
which is a minimal but nonetheless important standard.
III. CONCLUSION
We hold that the State’s action here deprived Mr. Wilson of a liberty
interest because the mandatory and automatic consequences of the Class X
misconduct conviction inevitably affected the duration of his sentence.
Therefore, Mr. Wilson’s due process rights were violated when he was convicted
of misconduct without any evidence. The misconduct conviction must be
reversed and expunged from his record, and his former status in earning credits
must be restored.
The judgement of the district court is REVERSED and this matter is
25
REMANDED for issuance of the writ.
26