Grady v. Wilken, 84-1319

• Decision Date: 29 May 1984
• Docket Number: No. 84-1319,84-1319
• Citation: 735 F.2d 303
• Parties: Thomas Lee GRADY, Appellant, v. Charles E. WILKEN, Stephen Korb, Timothy Dieters, Charles Harper and Rick Larkin, Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 303

735 F.2d 303

Thomas Lee GRADY, Appellant, v.Charles E. WILKEN, Stephen Korb, Timothy Dieters, Charles Harper and Rick Larkin, Appellees.

No. 84-1319.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Submitted March 30, 1984.

Decided May 29, 1984.

Before ROSS, McMILLIAN and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

AppellantThomas Lee Grady sued three prison administrators, a counselor and an inmate under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for filing a disciplinary report which led to Grady's transfer to a segregated unit and his temporary loss of mail privileges.The district court adopted the magistrate's report and recommendation and dismissed Grady's complaint.We affirm.

After a hearing, prison officials found that Grady had violated prison rules by attempting to extort money from another inmate with threats of violence.Grady was transferred to another facility for 15 days of disciplinary detention and 180 days of administrative segregation, during which time he received no mail for 20 days.Grady's original complaint challenged on several grounds the procedures and effects of his transfer.The district court found that only his claim of denial of access to the courts because of the denial of his mail stated a constitutional claim.Grady filed a motion to amend his complaint or to seek relief and defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.These motions form the basis of this appeal.

Grady proposed to join as defendants two prison officials and to add claims alleging that his punishment was disproportionately severe, prison officials improperly relied on confidential information at the hearing, his punishment was unsupported by substantial evidence, and he was denied a pretransfer hearing.The magistrate dismissed each request for amendment.

The magistrate found that Grady stated insufficient facts to demonstrate how the two prison officials violated his rights.Although pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595, 30 L.Ed.2d 652(1972), this court has affirmed the dismissal of a complaint based on "broad and conclusory statements."Ervin v. Ciccone, 557 F.2d 1260, 1262(8th Cir.1977).Because Grady alleges only that the two officials gave "tacit and/or direct approval" to the other violations he delineated, the amendment was properly denied as an insufficient statement.

Grady's punishment does not appear to be so significantly disproportionate as to violate basic notions of decency.SeeFitzgerald v. Procunier, 393 F.Supp. 335, 342(N.D.Cal.1975)(9 months in segregation is not disproportionate to stabbing and assault).But cf.Adams v. Carlson, 368 F.Supp. 1050, 1053(E.D.Ill.1973)(16 months in segregation is disproportionate for work stoppage).

The use of confidential information under these circumstances is not unconstitutional.Due process requirements are satisfied when the prisoner has notice of the facts underlying his alleged offense; identities of persons involved may be deleted if their inclusion would threaten institutional security.Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 567-70, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2980-81, 41 L.Ed.2d 935(1974);Rinehart v. Brewer, 483 F.Supp. 165, 169(S.D.Iowa1980).

The disciplinary committee's decision did not require the support of substantial evidence.This court has previously held...