Unpublished Disposition, 925 F.2d 1472 (9th Cir. 1991)

MEMORANDUM^** 

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Appellant Frank Whiteshield, an inmate at the Oregon State Penitentiary, was charged by prison officials with violating provisions of the Oregon Administrative Rules which prohibit inmates from possessing, manufacturing or using intoxicants. After a hearing, Whiteshield was placed in three months segregation and fined $200. Whiteshield then filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Santos, the hearing officer, and others associated with the disciplinary process. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. After review of the matter, we affirm the district court.

DISCUSSION

Whiteshield contends here that the Oregon Corrections Division lacks the authority to make and enforce rules levying inmate fines, since there is no statute which grants a presumption of validity to administrative rules and regulations. However, the Oregon Court of Appeals has ruled that the Department of Corrections had authority to adopt the rule challenged by Whiteshield. See Clark v. Schumacher, 795 P.2d 1093 (Or.App.1990); and Smith v. Oregon State Dept. of Corrections, 796 P.2d 1255 (Or.App.1990) (per curiam).

Whiteshield further contends his substantive due process rights were violated by the imposition of the fine by the prison disciplinary committee. The thrust of this argument apparently is that a prison official is not a proper hearing officer in a discipline hearing resulting in the imposition of a fine. Whiteshield's allegations are conclusory at best. However, from a review of the record, it appears that Whiteshield was afforded the minimum due process requirements. The fact that Mr. Santos was not a judge is not a valid basis for finding that due process has been violated. Due process is satisfied by a disciplinary committee composed of prison officials if no member of the committee was involved in investigating or reviewing the case. Bartholomew v. Reed, 477 F. Supp. 223 (D. Or. 1979), aff'd in relevant part sub nom. Bartholomew v. Watson, 665 F.2d 915 (9th Cir. 1982). At no time has Whiteshield contended that Hearing Officer Santos was personally involved in the investigation or conduct of the investigation or in reviewing the results of the investigation which resulted in the charges against Whiteshield.

After reviewing the matter de novo, it appears that the district court properly dismissed Whiteshield's complaint. See Abramsom v. Brownstein, 897 F.2d 389, 391 (9th Cir. 1990).

The judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED.