Joe T. Bell, Petitioner-appellant, v. Gary Maynard, Director, Oklahoma Department of Corrections;jerry Johnson, Deputy Director, Oklahoma Department Ofcorrections; Edward L. Evans, Deputy Director, O.c.c.; Jimtaylor, Population Coordinator for the Oklahoma Departmentof Corrections; Jesse Sutter, Deputy Warden, M.c.c.;ronnie Harper, Case Manager, M.c.c.; Diane Mcgee, Unitmanager, M.c.c.; Lenora Jordan, Case Manager/coordinator,o.c.c.; Lenora Jordan, Case Manager/coordinator, O.c.c.;dennis Creel, Mr., Correctional Counselor, M.c.c.; Gylnnbooher, Unit Manager, O.c.c.; Linda Reeves, Case Manager,o.c.c.; Barbara Wright, Case Manager, O.c.c., Respondents-appellees, 949 F.2d 401 (10th Cir. 1991)Annotate this Case
Dec. 4, 1991
Before LOGAN, JOHN P. MOORE and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.*
BALLOCK, Circuit Judge.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT**
Petitioner-appellant Joe T. Bell appeals from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against defendant prison officials. After pleading guilty to possession of contraband in a penal institution, petitioner should have received six offense points under the prison's security classification system. On several occasions, prison officials told petitioner that his security classification score was lower. When the error was discovered, petitioner was precluded from transferring to a community treatment facility. During the grievance process, prison officials expressed regret for the mixup. R. doc. 6 at Q. Petitioner now seeks injunctive relief in the nature of "overriding" the six points, and damages of $1.2 million. R. doc. 3 at 5.
We are unaware of any liberty or property interest created by state or federal law which attaches to an erroneous security classification which is later corrected; hence, petitioner has not been deprived of due process. See Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976). We therefore dismiss the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989).
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case therefore is ordered submitted without oral argument
This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for the purposes of establishing the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir.R. 36.3