Part II
Constitutional Law of Corrections
Chapter 12 – Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
– Due Process – Classification, Transfers,
Personal Injuries, and Property Loss

Introduction: Chapter looks at cases in
which inmates raise due process claims


Because of loss of property; also
Some non-discipline cases where inmates
claim a loss of liberty by the actions of
prison officials
Chapter Outline





The Nature of Classification
Meachum v. Fano; Montanye v. Haymes
McKune v. Lile; Young v. Harper
Olim v. Wakinekona
Howe v. Smith
Chapter Outline: cont’d






Vitek v. Jones
Kansas v. Hendricks; Kansas v. Crane
Farmer v. Brennan
International Transfers
Loss of Property and Personal Injuries
Use of Excessive Force
The Nature of Classification

One of the most important functions in
running prisons, involves



Where offender should serve her sentence
Where offender should be assigned, in that
setting, for housing, for special programs,
and for work
Specially trained staff, and written
policies
The Nature of Classification:
cont’d

Classification procedures looks at many
factors:



Age and sex of the offender
Criminal sophistication
Geographical concerns (such as home,
location of family, and visiting)
The Nature of Classification:
cont’d



Special needs (such as medical or
psychiatric, educational and vocational
training)
Special security problems (such as need for
separation, and escape risk)
Special factors (such as court
recommendation(s))
The Nature of Classification:
cont’d

Availability of space in appropriate facilities
 Facilities classified according to security level;
types of inmates received; programs offered
 Broad classifications – minimum, medium,
and maximum security; for males and for
females
 Also classified according to programs offered,
such as medical, psychiatric, vocational,
educational, and for inmates with higher
security needs (protection, disciplinary
housing)
The Nature of Classification:
cont’d

Basic (desirable) rule – inmate will be sent
to an institution as close to his home as
possible - appropriate for his security level
and other needs
The Nature of Classification:
cont’d

Classification determination is based on
various reports




Pre-sentence investigation
Law enforcement and court reports
Considerations from prior confinement
periods
Diagnostic/reception center process (where
exists), including face-to-face interviews
The Nature of Classification:
cont’d

Reclassification – can occur later in
stay, based on factors that appear after
inmate is in service of sentence
Meachum v. Fano (1976);
Montanye v. Haymes (1976)

Meachum v. Fano involved the transfer
of Fano and five other inmates from a
medium to maximum security prison
(where living conditions were less
favorable)
Meachum v. Fano; Montanye
v. Haymes: cont’d



Transfer based on information inmates
were involved in criminal conduct
None of the inmates punished by loss of
good time or disciplinary segregation
Question involved whether inmates were
entitled to a due process hearing prior to
transfer to a prison with less favorable
conditions
Meachum v. Fano; Montanye
v. Haymes: cont’d

Supreme Court in Meachum held there were
no due process entitlements



Prison officials have the discretion to transfer
inmates for any number of reasons
Constitution does not guarantee the convicted
prisoner will be placed in any particular prison
Conviction has “sufficiently extinguished the
defendant’s liberty interest” to empower the
State to confine him in any of its prisons”
Meachum v. Fano; Montanye
v. Haymes: cont’d

In Montanye v. Haymes, inmate
Haymes was transferred from one
maximum security prison to a second
prison of the same security

Inmate alleged transfer was done for
disciplinary reasons, due to his circulating a
petition among inmates complaining of his
removal as an inmate clerk in the law
library
Meachum v. Fano; Montanye
v. Haymes: cont’d


The Court in Montanye held that as long as the
conditions or degree of confinement are within
the sentence imposed upon the inmate and are
not otherwise violative of the Constitution, the
Due Process Clause does not in itself subject an
inmate’s treatment by prison authorities to
judicial oversight
“As long as” language anticipates the standards
for due process entitlements adopted in Sandin
McKune v. Lile (2002); Young
v. Harper (1997)

In McKune v. Lile, an inmate refused to
participate in prison’s mandatory Sexual
Abuse Treatment Program (SATP)
McKune v. Lile; Young v.
Harper : cont’d

SATP required inmate to sign “Admission of
Responsibility” form


Accepting all responsibility for crimes for
which sentenced
And required inmate to detail all prior sexual
activities, even those not charged – no legal
immunity provided
McKune v. Lile; Young v.
Harper : cont’d


Failure to comply would result in reduction
of prison privileges and transfer to another
potentially more dangerous prison
Inmate sued for injunctive relief, claiming
Fifth Amendment violation (right against
self-incrimination)
McKune v. Lile; Young v.
Harper : cont’d

Court upheld state, seeing Meachum as
controlling authority


Transfer was incidental to state’s legitimate
penological reason for transfer: limited space
By moving inmate out, room is made for
other inmates to move in and take part in the
program
McKune v. Lile; Young v.
Harper : cont’d

In Young v. Harper, an inmate was
removed from a preparole program

The state’s Preparole Program became
effective whenever state prisons exceeded
95% of capacity
McKune v. Lile; Young v.
Harper : cont’d



Program authorized the release by
administrative action of inmates prior to
sentence expiration – referred to as
conditional release
Inmate was released after serving 15 years
of a life sentence for two murders
He spent five months in the community
McKune v. Lile; Young v.
Harper : cont’d


Governor under authority granted to him
by the Program, subsequently denied the
inmate parole and the inmate was returned
to prison
Inmate filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus, claiming deprivation of liberty
without due process
McKune v. Lile; Young v.
Harper : cont’d

State argued Meachum was controlling,
that reincarceration of a preparolee was
only a transfer to a higher degree of
confinement
McKune v. Lile; Young v.
Harper : cont’d

Court disagreed with the state; Court
affirmed appeals court holding that


Preparole “more closely resembles parole or
probation than even the most permissive
forms of institutional confinement”
Due process requires that program
participants receive procedural protections
Olim v. Wakinekona (1983)

Inmate in Hawaii prison was identified
as a serious troublemaker


Inmate was transferred to a prison in
California
Inmate filed a Section 1983 action against
state officials, claiming a denial of
procedural due process because he did not
receive a hearing prior to transfer
Olim v. Wakinekona: cont’d


Court held that reasoning of Meachum and
Montanye apply, and that an inmate may
be transferred out of state without a
hearing
Such transfer does not “deprive inmate of
any liberty interest protected by the Due
Process Clause”
Howe v. Smith (1981)

State inmate serving life sentence for
murder was transferred to a federal
prison pursuant to a federal statute (18
USC § 5003) allowing for such transfers

State was planning to close its high
security prison
Howe v. Smith: cont’d


Inmate provided hearing within state
Hearing officer recommended inmate’s
transfer




Based on dangerousness
Not suitable for a community-based program
(all that state would have)
Inmate seen as an escape risk
And as requiring long-term maximumsecurity supervision
Howe v. Smith: cont’d

Supreme Court upheld validity of transfer,
principally on the federal statutory
language, and not on constitutional
protections

“[P]lain language, the legislative history, and
the longstanding administrative interpretation
of [Sec.] 5003(a) clearly demonstrate that
the provision is a broad charter authorizing
the transfer of state prisoners to federal
custody.”
Vitek v. Jones (1980)



Transfer case made outside the range of
conditions ordinarily to be expected by one
serving a sentence of confinement
Inmate Jones serving 3-9 year sentence in
state prison
He was placed in prison hospital, for
psychiatric and behavioral problems


Two days later placed in solitary confinement
There, he set his mattress on fire
Vitek v. Jones: cont’d


Based on reports he was suffering from a
mental illness or defect, and a finding he
could not receive proper treatment in prison,
he was sent to a state mental hospital
Jones and other inmates challenged the
transfer process, claiming denial of due
process protections when transferred from
the prison complex to the mental hospital
Vitek v. Jones: cont’d

Supreme Court agreed

Such a transfer involves a protected liberty
interest and requires a hearing

A criminal conviction and prison sentence
removes an inmate’s right to freedom from
confinement for service of his sentence
Vitek v. Jones: cont’d


But does not allow the state to classify the
inmate as mentally ill and subject the inmate
to involuntary psychiatric treatment without
providing additional due process protections
The due process required:


Advance written notice to the inmate that a
transfer was being considered
A hearing, with disclosure of the evidence
relied on, plus an opportunity for the inmate
to be heard and to present documentary
evidence
Vitek v. Jones: cont’d





Opportunity at the hearing to present
witnesses and to confront and cross-examine
witnesses (absent a finding of good reason
not to allow)
An independent decision maker
A written decision by the factfinder as to the
evidence relied on, and the reasons for the
recommended action
Assistance by someone at the hearing
Effective and timely notice of these hearing
rights
Kansas v. Hendricks ( 1997);
Kansas v. Crane (2002)

Cases deal with state’s Sexually Violent
Predator Act

Act set procedures for civilly committing
persons who due to a “mental abnormality”
or a “personality disorder” are likely to
become involved in “predatory acts of
sexual violence”
Kansas v. Hendricks; Kansas
v. Crane: cont’d

In Kansas v. Hendricks, Hendricks had a
long history of sexually molesting
children


After serving 10 years for taking “indecent
liberties” with two 13-year old boys, he
was due for release
State filed a petition seeking his
confinement under the new law
Kansas v. Hendricks; Kansas
v. Crane: cont’d


Inmate challenged the law, alleging a lack
of due process, double jeopardy, and ex
post facto statutory punishment
Inmate did not, at his hearing, dispute the
diagnosis that he suffered from pedophilia
Kansas v. Hendricks; Kansas
v. Crane: cont’d

Supreme Court upheld the Act, likening it
to state civil commitment procedures for
mental patients that the Court had
previously approved
Kansas v. Hendricks; Kansas
v. Crane: cont’d


Precommitment requirement of “mental
abnormality” or “personality disorder” is
consistent with the requirements of other
statutes upheld by the Court in that it
narrows the class of persons eligible for
confinement to those who are not able to
control their dangerousness
Court also rejected double jeopardy and ex
post facto, holding that the Act is nonpunitive
thus removing “an essential prerequisite” for
both claims
Kansas v. Hendricks; Kansas
v. Crane: cont’d

In Kansas v. Crane, the Court looked at the
question of whether the Act required a
finding that person is completely unable to
control his dangerous behavior

Court held that Hendricks did not require a total
or complete lack of control, but disagreed with
the state position that Hendricks allowed
commitment without any determination at all of
lack of control
Kansas v. Hendricks; Kansas
v. Crane: cont’d

Court held there must be proof of serious
difficulty in controlling behavior, and that this,
when viewed in light of such features as the
psychiatric diagnosis and the severity of the
mental abnormality, must be sufficient “to
distinguish the dangerous sexual offender,
whose serious mental illness, abnormality, or
disorder subjects him to civil commitment from
the dangerous but typical recidivist convicted in
an ordinary criminal case”
Farmer v. Brennan (1994)

Case raised serious questions about the
proper classification of an inmate
Farmer v. Brennan: cont’d

Farmer was a transsexual, medically
identified as a male because he
possessed male sex organs


Inmate’s status presented difficult
questions on how best he could be placed
and treated within the prison
Prison officials must take steps to protect
inmates, particularly when on notice a risk
is posed by an inmate’s particular behavior
Farmer v. Brennan: cont’d

Two possible types of liabilities in such
circumstances

Common law tort liability

Applies if officials are negligent in taking
protective steps, when they have received
some notice of danger to the inmate and the
inmate is then assaulted because of officials’
inaction
Farmer v. Brennan: cont’d

Could also be liability for violating an
inmate’s constitutional rights

Applies if an official knows that an inmate
faces a substantial risk of serious harm and
disregards that risk and fails to take
reasonable steps to avoid it
International Transfers

Treaty procedures exist for transfer of
inmates between the United States and
other countries


Requires that both the holding and the
receiving country agree to the offender’s
transfer
The offender also has to agree to the
transfer
International Transfers: cont’d


The procedure has been upheld in federal
courts against claims that criminal
proceedings in the foreign country violated
due process standards
The leading case considering challenges to
the treaty process and the authority to hold
prisoners under sentences imposed in
another country is Rosado v. Civiletti (1980)
International Transfers: cont’d

Rosado and three other inmates made
numerous allegations regarding the
circumstances of their convictions in
Mexico for drug offenses

They challenged the constitutionality of
their detention by habeas corpus action
International Transfers: cont’d

The Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit noted that the U.S. Constitution
only applied to actions taken in the
U.S., or to actions taken by U.S. agents
working in a foreign country

Bill of Rights does not protect U.S. citizens
against any actions that might be taken by
a foreign nation’s officials
International Transfers: cont’d

A major concern in this case was the
voluntariness of the prisoners’ consent to
be returned to the United States


The appeals court found that the inmates’
decisions were voluntarily and intelligently
made
The court further recognized the desirability
of having the transfer procedures available
and did not want to jeopardize the chances
of other inmates to transfer out of Mexico
International Transfers: cont’d


The court approved the concept and the
legality of the international transfer
process
Returning inmates can challenge (under
the writ of habeas corpus or § 1983) any
conditions or actions of U.S. officials after
the inmates are returned to the custody of
the United States
International Transfers: cont’d

Transfer procedures have been upheld
against claims by a U.S. inmate that he
should be returned to his native country even
though the U.S. didn’t approve of the transfer

Lower courts held the inmate had no
entitlement to mandamus relief, because the
Attorney General had total discretion to make
the transfer decision within the framework of
the treaty
Loss of Property and Personal
Injuries

In Parratt v. Taylor (1981), the hobby
materials ordered, and paid for, by an
inmate were lost


Inmate sued under Section 1983 claiming
deprivation of property without due
process of law
Supreme Court noted that the inmate’s
claim was that the property was
negligently lost
Loss of Property and Personal
Injuries: cont’d

The analysis would have to focus on
whether the essential elements of a
Section 1983 claim were present:


Was the loss caused by a person acting
under color of state law and if yes
Whether that state official’s conduct deprived
the inmate of a right given him under the
Constitution
Loss of Property and Personal
Injuries: cont’d


The Court found that the inmate had been
deprived of his property under color of
state law
The Court then looked at the applicable
constitutional provision – the due process
clause

Court found first part of clause was met –
that there was a loss of property
Loss of Property and Personal
Injuries: cont’d


The Court found, however, that the second
part of the test – that he was deprived of his
property without due process of law – was
not met
The Court noted that the state provided a
remedy to inmates who claimed a loss of
property due to staff negligence –
specifically, the state had a tort claims
procedure
Loss of Property and Personal
Injuries: cont’d

Court held that loss of property could be
the basis of a claim for deprivation of
constitutional rights under § 1983, if the
state did not have an adequate remedy to
compensate the inmate for that deprivation

Since state, in this case, did have such a
procedure (tort claim), this was sufficient to
have the § 1983 action dismissed for failure
to state a claim
Loss of Property and Personal
Injuries: cont’d

Hudson v. Palmer (1984), in addition to
dealing with cell searches, also had a
due process claim

Inmate Palmer claimed the officers
intentionally destroyed some of Palmer’s
property just to harass him
Loss of Property and Personal
Injuries: cont’d

Court extended its holding in Parratt,
saying that even intentional damage to
property is not the basis for a
constitutional claim, as long as the state
has a remedy for the inmate to use to be
compensated for his loss

In this case, the state did provide the inmate
with a remedy – he could file a claim for
compensation for his lost or damaged
property
Loss of Property and Personal
Injuries: cont’d

In Daniels v. Williams (1986), inmate
sued under Section 1983 seeking
damages for back and ankle injuries
sustained when he fell on a stairway at
the city jail

Inmate claimed jail officer had negligently
left a pillow on the stairs, causing his fall
Loss of Property and Personal
Injuries: cont’d


Court said that the due process clause was
intended to secure inmates from abuse of
power by prison officials
Court had to address the issue of whether
ordinary negligence is enough to state a
constitutional claim
Loss of Property and Personal
Injuries: cont’d


Court held that the word “deprive” in the
Constitution connotes more than a
negligent act
That mere claims of negligence would not
support a constitutional claim under
Section 1983

That the lack of due care “suggests no more
than a failure to measure up to the conduct
of a reasonable person”
Loss of Property and Personal
Injuries: cont’d

In Davidson v. Cannon (1986),
Davidson sent a note, to the prison’s
assistant superintendent, saying that he
had been threatened by another inmate

The note was forwarded to a corrections
sergeant, who failed to read the note right
away, and left the institution
Loss of Property and Personal
Injuries: cont’d


Davidson was assaulted and injured by the
inmate identified in the note
Davidson sued under Section 1983 alleging
violation of his constitutional rights under
the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments
Loss of Property and Personal
Injuries: cont’d

Court held for the government


“[W]here a government official is merely
negligent in causing the injury, no procedure
for compensation is constitutionally required”
Such behavior does not approach the sort of
abuse of government conduct that the due
process clause was designed to prevent
Loss of Property and Personal
Injuries: cont’d


Rather than abuse of power, Court noted that
officials mistakenly believed that the situation
was not serious, and that the sergeant simply
forgot about the note from the inmate
Inmate wanted some form of remedy, but the
state did not have one for this type of injury

Court held that while it might be good to have,
the Constitution does not require it in situations
where there has been no deprivation of a
protected interest (life, liberty, or property)
Use of Excessive Force


Claims of excessive use of force can,
and are brought or considered under
the Eighth Amendment
Claims of staff abuse, of overreaction
may also be brought under the
Fourteenth or Fifth Amendments
Use of Excessive Force: cont’d

If action by staff was taken maliciously and
sadistically, that would seem to show an
abusive use of government power or
authority, which the Court in Daniels and
Davidson said the due process clause was
meant to protect against
Use of Excessive Force: cont’d

The question then would be whether the
state had an adequate compensation
remedy under some claim procedure


If not, the injured inmate is left without a
state remedy and would have a claim to be
made under § 1983 for violation of due
process rights
The Supreme Court has not yet decided
that exact case