Requena v. Sheridan, 691 F. App'x 523

Requena, a prisoner, challenged the result of a disciplinary proceeding and initially filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the district court treated it as a § 2241 petition and dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.\
This court previously held his claims were not cognizable under § 2241 and remanded to consider whether § 1983 claims were stated.\
Requena filed an amended § 1983 complaint asserting due process, Eighth Amendment, and denial-of-access-to-courts claims; the district court dismissed the amended complaint and denied a Rule 59 motion.\
The district court held (a) Requena did not show the disciplinary sanction imposed an atypical and significant hardship to create a protected liberty interest; (b) alleged Eighth Amendment deprivations were not sufficiently serious; and (c) he failed to identify a nonfrivolous underlying claim for an access-to-courts claim.\
Requena appealed; the Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed the dismissal, emphasizing failure to challenge the district court’s liberty-interest ruling and agreeing Requena lacked a nonfrivolous underlying claim for an access-to-courts claim.\
Requena did not appeal the dismissal of his Eighth Amendment claim; the panel also declined to revisit the Supreme Court’s “some evidence” standard for disciplinary-review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether disciplinary sanction created a protected liberty interest under Sandin	Requena argued procedural limits (e.g., documentary evidence rules) denied due process	Prison/defendant argued the sanction did not impose an atypical and significant hardship	Court held Requena did not challenge the district court’s finding that no protected liberty interest existed, so claim fails
Whether Requena was denied access to courts in pursuing state-court challenge	Requena contended prison rules impeded his ability to litigate his disciplinary appeal in state court	Defendant argued Requena could not identify a nonfrivolous underlying claim	Court held Requena failed to identify a nonfrivolous arguable underlying claim, so access claim fails
Whether the “some evidence” standard for reviewing prison disciplinary findings is unfair	Requena argued the standard is unfair (challenges adequacy of evidence review)	Defendant relied on binding Supreme Court precedent upholding the standard	Court held it cannot overrule Supreme Court precedent (Superintendent v. Hill) and rejected the argument
Whether the Eighth Amendment claim warranted relief	Requena alleged Eighth Amendment deprivations (conditions)	Defendant argued alleged deprivations were not sufficiently serious	Court noted Requena did not appeal the dismissal of his Eighth Amendment claim (no relief granted)

Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2007) (standard of review for dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii))
Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005) (pro se pleadings construed liberally but court will not make arguments for plaintiff)
Washington v. Unified Gov’t of Wyandotte Cty., 847 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2017) (two-step due process inquiry for protected liberty interests and procedural sufficiency)
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (liberty interest exists only where disciplinary sanction imposes atypical and significant hardship)
Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403 (2002) (access-to-courts claim requires identification of a nonfrivolous, arguable underlying claim)
Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985) (established “some evidence” standard for reviewing prison disciplinary findings)
United States v. Barrett, 496 F.3d 1079 (10th Cir. 2007) (court cannot overrule Supreme Court precedent)