descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Charles Greenwell v. Colorado Department of Corrections, in Its Official Capacity for the Purpose of Preliminary Injunction Only Pursuant to Rule 65 Frcp Aristedes Zavaras, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections in His Official Capacity for the Purpose of Preliminary Injunction, Pursuant to Rule 65 of Frcp Mark McKinna Warden/superintendent of the Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility in His Individualized Personal Capacity N. Clarr, Major at the Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility, in His Individualized Personal Capacity Gloria Masterson, Disciplinary Appellate Officer at Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility in Her Individualized Personal Capacity Dennis Dean, Lt., Disciplinary Hearing Officer at the Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility, in His Individualized Personal Capacity Joe Giganti, Captain Cellhouse One Disciplinary Officer at the Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility, in His Individualized Personal Capacity James Cowan, Lieutenant at the Colorado Te

Citations: 107 F.3d 20; 1997 WL 49080; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 6871Docket: 96-1242

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; February 5, 1997; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this appellate case, the plaintiff-appellant, Charles Greenwell, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Colorado Department of Corrections and several officials, which was dismissed by the district court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the dismissal, focusing on the district court's assessment of the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and the denial of an extension to respond to the Martinez report. The appellate court upheld the lower court's decisions, noting that the plaintiff-appellant failed to demonstrate how an additional response would affect the case outcome. The court further affirmed that the disciplinary hearing conducted by the department complied with due process requirements, as the hearing officer's findings were justified despite inconsistencies in witness testimonies. The decision maintained that the district court's Order of Dismissal dated April 25, 1996, was correct in its rationale. This ruling, while not binding precedent, can be cited under specific circumstances as per the circuit's citation rules. Consequently, the dismissal of the complaint was affirmed, leaving the plaintiff-appellant without further recourse in this matter.

Legal Issues Addressed

Due Process in Disciplinary Hearings

Application: The appellate court concluded that the appellant was afforded due process during his disciplinary hearing, as the hearing officer's decision was supported by a reasonable belief in the occurrence of a threat.

Reasoning: The court upheld the district court’s determination that Greenwell received the due process he was entitled to during his disciplinary hearing, asserting that the hearing officer's belief in the occurrence of a threat was justified despite discrepancies in witness testimony.

Frivolousness under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)

Application: The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint on the grounds of frivolousness, as the plaintiff-appellant did not adequately demonstrate how an extension to respond would alter the outcome of the case.

Reasoning: The appellate court found no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying Greenwell's request for a second extension to respond, noting that he failed to convincingly argue how a response would change the case outcome.

Precedential Value of Unpublished Decisions

Application: The decision in this case is not considered binding precedent, except under specific doctrines, as indicated by circuit rules governing the citation of orders and judgments.

Reasoning: The decision is not binding precedent except under specific legal doctrines, and while the court generally disfavors citing orders and judgments, they can be cited under certain conditions outlined in 10th Cir. R. 36.3.