3. Administrative segregation.

U.S. District Court DUE PROCESS CONDITIONS LIBERTY INTEREST

Austin v. Wilkinson, 189 F.Supp.2d 719 (N.D.Ohio 2002). A class of current and former prisoners at a high maximum security prison brought a [section] 1983 action seeking injunctive relief, alleging denial of due process in their placement and retention at the facility. The district court held that: (1) the inmates had a liberty interest in their conditions of confinement; (2) the inmates were entitled to due process protection in decisions to send them and retain them at the facility; (3) the inmates were denied due process in the decisions to send them to, and retain them at, the facility; and (4) new corrections policies failed to provide adequate due process safeguards. The court held that the combination of conditions faced by inmates at the high maximum security prison imposed an atypical and significant hardship, giving the inmates a liberty interested protected by due process. The court noted that inmates in the prison were subjected to lengthy stays of indefinite duration, had extremely limited contact with other individuals, were never allowed outdoor recreation, were subject to extremely intrusive restrictions when they were allowed out of their cells, and were denied parole eligibility.

The court held that inmates sent to the prison were entitled to minimal due process consisting of: (1) twenty-four hour advance notice of all specific evidence relied upon to support reasons for reclassification; (2) a requirement that an inmate be allowed to appear at his reclassification hearing and present evidence, including witnesses and documents; and (3) a requirement that the reclassification committee issue a written statement specifically describing evidence relied on and reasons for its recommendation. "Having found that the defendants violated, and will continue to violate, the plaintiffs' constitutionally liberty interest," the court ordered the parties to file proposed injunctive orders to correct the violations. (Ohio State Penitentiary)

U.S. Appeals Court DUE PROCESS

Higgs v. Carver, 286 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2002). A pretrial detainee brought a civil right action alleging due process violations and retaliation. The district court dismissed the complaint and the detainee appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The district court held that issues of fact existed as to the reason for the detainee's segregation, and that the detainee's retaliation allegations sufficiently stated a claim. The appeals court was unable to determine from the record whether the detainee was placed in lockdown segregation for preventive purposes or for punishment. (Indiana)

U.S. Appeals Court DUE PROCESS

Torres v. Fauver, 292 F.3d 141 (3rd Cir. 2002). A former state prisoner brought a [section] 1983 action against prison officials, alleging that his due process rights were violated when he was sanctioned for violating prison rules. The district court granted summary judgment for the officials and the appeals court affirmed. The prisoner had been transferred to "less amenable and more restrictive quarters" and placed in disciplinary detention for 15 days and administrative segregation for 120 days, after he was found to have attempted to plan an escape. (Bayside State prison, New Jersey)

U.S. Appeals Court HOMOSEXUALS

Veney v. Wyche, 293 F.3d 726 (4th Cir. 2002). An inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against prison officials, alleging they treated him differently from other inmates because of his gender and sexual preference, in violation of his right to equal protection. The district court dismissed the claim and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the prison practice of segregating homosexual male inmates was based on legitimate penological interests, and that the gender-related disparate treatment in the housing of homosexuals was rationally calibrated to address legitimate concerns. According to the court, institutions for females are much less violent than those for males, and male inmates were more likely than females to have homophobic attitudes. The court noted that prison officials had an absence of ready alternatives available. (Riverside Regional Jail, Virginia)