Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Hawkes v. Wyoming Department, 10th Cir. (1997)
Hawkes v. Wyoming Department, 10th Cir. (1997)
Hawkes v. Wyoming Department, 10th Cir. (1997)
SEP 4 1997
PATRICK FISHER
No. 97-8006
(D.C. No. 96-CV-129)
(D. Wyo.)
Clerk
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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff John L. Hawkes, Jr. appeals from an order of the district court
dismissing his complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) prior to service on
defendants. We dismiss the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i),(ii).
In this 42 U.S.C. 1983 action, Mr. Hawkes alleged he was denied his
constitutional right of access to the courts as he was denied access to an adequate
law library. He also alleged he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. He further contended he was denied due
process and equal protection because his disciplinary hearing was held less than
twenty-four hours after he was served with charges and the hearing officer and
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
-2-
-5-
his claim. The waiver contains no restriction indicating Mr. Hawkes was
demanding a minimum of twenty-four hours before the hearing be held.
Mr. Hawkes complaint that prison officials failure to follow prison
procedures, is likewise not actionable. Process is not an end in itself. Its
constitutional purpose is to protect a substantive interest to which the individual
has a legitimate claim of entitlement. Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 250
(1983), cf. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, ___, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 2298-2300
(1995)(rejecting concept that prison regulations are more than procedural
guidelines which confer protectable due process and liberty rights on inmates;
rather these rights are limited to freedom from restraint which imposes atypical
and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of
prison life.). Mr. Hawkes has failed to allege any violation to any of his
substantive interests which he had a legitimate claim of entitlement.
(...continued)
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1109 (10th Cir. 1991), the court may accept additional
facts contained in the report which clarify a plaintiffs complaint, see Taylor v.
Wallace, 931 F.2d 698, 700 n.3 (10th Cir. 1991). Here, the waiver confirms Mr.
Hawkes allegation that his disciplinary hearing was held prior to the time set
forth in the prison regulations, but clarifies that that situation occurred because
Mr. Hawkes agreed to it.
1
-6-
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-7-