F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 1998 TENTH CIRCUIT __________________________ PATRICK FISHER Clerk
BANT BRYAN BAIRD,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 97-5229 (N.D. Okla.) RONALD WARD, (D.Ct. No. 97-CV-107-H)
Respondent-Appellee. __________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT * __________________________
Before SEYMOUR, BRORBY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges. __________________________
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.
Mr. Bant Bryan Baird appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel.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. U.S.C. § 2254 petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. Based on our
conclusion Mr. Baird failed to exhaust the state remedy of writ of mandamus
available to him, we affirm.
Mr. Baird is an inmate of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary and a pro se
litigant. This appeal arises out of his civil rights complaint brought under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous Oklahoma state prison employees and officials.
In his complaint, he alleged the defendants deprived him of federal constitutional
due process 1 in three disciplinary proceedings 2 that resulted in the loss of his good
time credits, and required disciplinary segregation. Mr. Baird claimed 1) the
defendants lied during their testimony and filed false accusations; 2) the
defendants refused to call certain witnesses that Mr. Baird requested to testify in
his defense; 3) the disciplinary chairperson in the Phillips hearing was biased and
failed to make a written statement as to why he relied on Mr. Phillips’ testimony
over other witnesses’ testimony; and 4) the evidence was insufficient to support
1 In violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
2 For purposes of this judgment, we refer to the three disciplinary hearings as the McClary hearing for the battery offense on November 1, 1995, the McCloud hearing for the battery offense on November 9, 1995, and the Phillips hearing for battery offense that also occurred on November 9, 1995. The names of the hearings correspond to last names of the correction officers who are the victims of Mr. Baird’s battery offenses.
-2- the convictions. As relief, he sought to have his misconduct convictions
expunged and his good time credits restored. He did not pursue any of these
claims in state court before he filed his federal complaint.
The district court construed the action as a petition for habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2254 because Mr. Baird effectively challenged the length of his
confinement. 3 The defendants moved to dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust
state remedies. The matter was referred to a magistrate who recommended the
petition be denied for failure to exhaust state remedies. The district court adopted
the magistrate’s report and recommendation, and dismissed the petition. Mr.
Baird appeals.
Mr. Baird asserts the district court erroneously dismissed his § 2254
petition for failure to exhaust state remedies because no adequate state remedy
was available to him when he filed his petition. He also claims the district court
erroneously concluded he can now file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in
Oklahoma because he will be entitled to immediate release. We review the
3 A request for restoration of lost good time credits is a challenge to the length of confinement. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487-88 (1973). Habeas corpus is the proper remedy for challenging a prisoner’s length of confinement. Id.
-3- district court’s legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error in
dismissing a habeas petition. Davis v. Executive Dir. of Dep’t of Corrections, 100
F.3d 750, 756 (10th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1703 (1997).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1), an applicant for a petition of habeas corpus
must exhaust state remedies before a federal court can grant an application for a
writ of habeas corpus. This exhaustion doctrine requires the state prisoner to
present his federal constitutional claims to the highest state courts prior to raising
his claims in a federal habeas corpus petition. Hernandez v. Starbuck, 69 F.3d
1089, 1092 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1223 (1996). The exhaustion
requirement exists as a matter of comity to give states the initial opportunity to
address and correct alleged violations of federal law. Id. When a petition
contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims, we must dismiss the petition in
its entirety. 4 Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982); Jones v. Hess, 681 F.2d
688, 695 (10th Cir. 1982).
The district court dismissed Mr. Baird’s petition because he failed to
pursue any remedies for his claims in Oklahoma courts. In particular, the court
4 The petitioner may then amend his habeas petition deleting unexhausted claims, or he may wait until all claims have been exhausted in state courts. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 520 (1982).
-4- found the Oklahoma remedy of writ of mandamus was available to Mr. Baird
when he filed his § 2254 petition. 5 Oklahoma’s writ of mandamus remedy is
available to correct violations of a prisoner’s minimum due process rights. See
Waldon, 861 P.2d at 313; Canady v. Reynolds, 880 P.2d 391, 397 (Okla. Crim.
App. 1994). Minimum due process in prison disciplinary proceedings requires,
inter alia, the inmate’s right to present witnesses in his defense if not unduly
hazardous to institutional or correctional goals, and a written statement by the
factfinder as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action.
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-64, 566 (1974); Waldon, 861 P.2d at 313.
These are precisely the type of claims that Mr. Baird made in his petition. For
example, Mr. Baird claimed the disciplinary chairperson in the Phillips hearing
failed to make a written statement as to why he relied on Mr. Phillips’ version of
facts over other witnesses’ testimony, and the defendants refused to call certain
witnesses that Mr. Baird asked to testify in his defense. Although the Oklahoma
mandamus remedy is not available to claims involving the respondent’s refusal to
perform a legal duty that is discretionary, Okla. Stat. tit. 22, ch. 18, App., Rule
10.6(B), the written statement requirement for minimum due process is not
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 1998 TENTH CIRCUIT __________________________ PATRICK FISHER Clerk
BANT BRYAN BAIRD,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 97-5229 (N.D. Okla.) RONALD WARD, (D.Ct. No. 97-CV-107-H)
Respondent-Appellee. __________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT * __________________________
Before SEYMOUR, BRORBY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges. __________________________
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.
Mr. Bant Bryan Baird appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28
* 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. U.S.C. § 2254 petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. Based on our
conclusion Mr. Baird failed to exhaust the state remedy of writ of mandamus
available to him, we affirm.
Mr. Baird is an inmate of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary and a pro se
litigant. This appeal arises out of his civil rights complaint brought under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous Oklahoma state prison employees and officials.
In his complaint, he alleged the defendants deprived him of federal constitutional
due process 1 in three disciplinary proceedings 2 that resulted in the loss of his good
time credits, and required disciplinary segregation. Mr. Baird claimed 1) the
defendants lied during their testimony and filed false accusations; 2) the
defendants refused to call certain witnesses that Mr. Baird requested to testify in
his defense; 3) the disciplinary chairperson in the Phillips hearing was biased and
failed to make a written statement as to why he relied on Mr. Phillips’ testimony
over other witnesses’ testimony; and 4) the evidence was insufficient to support
1 In violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
2 For purposes of this judgment, we refer to the three disciplinary hearings as the McClary hearing for the battery offense on November 1, 1995, the McCloud hearing for the battery offense on November 9, 1995, and the Phillips hearing for battery offense that also occurred on November 9, 1995. The names of the hearings correspond to last names of the correction officers who are the victims of Mr. Baird’s battery offenses.
-2- the convictions. As relief, he sought to have his misconduct convictions
expunged and his good time credits restored. He did not pursue any of these
claims in state court before he filed his federal complaint.
The district court construed the action as a petition for habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2254 because Mr. Baird effectively challenged the length of his
confinement. 3 The defendants moved to dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust
state remedies. The matter was referred to a magistrate who recommended the
petition be denied for failure to exhaust state remedies. The district court adopted
the magistrate’s report and recommendation, and dismissed the petition. Mr.
Baird appeals.
Mr. Baird asserts the district court erroneously dismissed his § 2254
petition for failure to exhaust state remedies because no adequate state remedy
was available to him when he filed his petition. He also claims the district court
erroneously concluded he can now file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in
Oklahoma because he will be entitled to immediate release. We review the
3 A request for restoration of lost good time credits is a challenge to the length of confinement. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487-88 (1973). Habeas corpus is the proper remedy for challenging a prisoner’s length of confinement. Id.
-3- district court’s legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error in
dismissing a habeas petition. Davis v. Executive Dir. of Dep’t of Corrections, 100
F.3d 750, 756 (10th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1703 (1997).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1), an applicant for a petition of habeas corpus
must exhaust state remedies before a federal court can grant an application for a
writ of habeas corpus. This exhaustion doctrine requires the state prisoner to
present his federal constitutional claims to the highest state courts prior to raising
his claims in a federal habeas corpus petition. Hernandez v. Starbuck, 69 F.3d
1089, 1092 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1223 (1996). The exhaustion
requirement exists as a matter of comity to give states the initial opportunity to
address and correct alleged violations of federal law. Id. When a petition
contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims, we must dismiss the petition in
its entirety. 4 Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982); Jones v. Hess, 681 F.2d
688, 695 (10th Cir. 1982).
The district court dismissed Mr. Baird’s petition because he failed to
pursue any remedies for his claims in Oklahoma courts. In particular, the court
4 The petitioner may then amend his habeas petition deleting unexhausted claims, or he may wait until all claims have been exhausted in state courts. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 520 (1982).
-4- found the Oklahoma remedy of writ of mandamus was available to Mr. Baird
when he filed his § 2254 petition. 5 Oklahoma’s writ of mandamus remedy is
available to correct violations of a prisoner’s minimum due process rights. See
Waldon, 861 P.2d at 313; Canady v. Reynolds, 880 P.2d 391, 397 (Okla. Crim.
App. 1994). Minimum due process in prison disciplinary proceedings requires,
inter alia, the inmate’s right to present witnesses in his defense if not unduly
hazardous to institutional or correctional goals, and a written statement by the
factfinder as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action.
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-64, 566 (1974); Waldon, 861 P.2d at 313.
These are precisely the type of claims that Mr. Baird made in his petition. For
example, Mr. Baird claimed the disciplinary chairperson in the Phillips hearing
failed to make a written statement as to why he relied on Mr. Phillips’ version of
facts over other witnesses’ testimony, and the defendants refused to call certain
witnesses that Mr. Baird asked to testify in his defense. Although the Oklahoma
mandamus remedy is not available to claims involving the respondent’s refusal to
perform a legal duty that is discretionary, Okla. Stat. tit. 22, ch. 18, App., Rule
10.6(B), the written statement requirement for minimum due process is not
5 The Oklahoma remedy of writ of habeas corpus was not available to him at the time he filed his federal petition because he was not entitled to immediate release if his requested relief was granted, as required by Oklahoma law. See Waldon v. Evans, 861 P.2d 311, 313 (Okla. Crim. App. 1993); Okla. Stat. tit. 22, ch. 18, App. Rule 10.6(C).
-5- discretionary. See Wolff, 418 U.S. at 564. Therefore, because Mr. Baird can
exhaust at least one of his claims in Oklahoma courts, we must dismiss his
petition. See Rose, 455 U.S. at 522.
Mr. Baird contends the mandamus action is unavailable because the
defendants’ decision to revoke good time credits is discretionary. Mr. Baird’s
contention would be correct if he attacked solely the merits of the decision
revoking his good time credits. However, he asserts he was denied procedural
due process during his disciplinary proceedings, not that the defendants erred in
calculating or revoking the credits. See, e.g., Waldon, 861 P.2d at 313 (noting the
writ of mandamus is for due process review only, not on the merits of the
disciplinary decision); Wallace v. Cody, 951 F.2d 1170, 1172 (10th Cir. 1991)
(ruling petitioner who alleged his good time credits were incorrectly calculated
did not have an adequate remedy under state law because the issue was
discretionary). Hence, a petition for a writ of mandamus is appropriate to address
Mr. Baird’s due process claims.
Mr. Baird also claims the district court erred in stating he can file a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus in state court because he is now eligible for immediate
release if his request for relief is granted. We do not address this issue because
-6- we dismiss this petition on the grounds he did not exhaust the mandamus remedy.
As Mr. Baird is now entitled to immediate release if his relief is granted, and
therefore eligible for the state habeas corpus remedy, Mr. Baird will need to
exhaust this remedy prior to filing a new federal petition.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Mr.
Baird’s petition is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust state
remedies.
Entered by the Court:
WADE BRORBY United States Circuit Judge
-7-