Title: Havener v. Glaser

State: north-dakota

Issuer: North Dakota Supreme Court

Document:

251 N.W.2d 753 (1977) Joseph H. HAVENER, Warden of the North Dakota State Penitentiary, Petitioner, v. Gerald G. GLASER, Judge of the District Court, Burleigh County, Fourth Judicial District, Respondent. Crim. No. 587. Supreme Court of North Dakota. March 11, 1977. *754 Edwin F. Zuern, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Bismarck, for petitioner. Houdek & Wolberg, Bismarck, for respondent; argued by Duane Houdek, Bismarck. ERICKSTAD, Chief Justice. We are asked by Joseph H. Havener, warden of the North Dakota State Penitentiary, to issue a supervisory writ staying a February 11, 1977, order of the North Dakota district court, fourth judicial district, releasing prisoners Richard Collins and Michael Schroeder from administrative isolation. On February 11, we directed that the order of the district court be stayed until further order of this court, and that the Honorable Gerald G. Glaser, judge of the district court, show cause why the stay order should not be made permanent. A show cause hearing was held at 10:00 a. m. February 17, 1977, before this court. This matter came to the district court as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, brought by counsel for prisoners Collins and Schroeder, under Chapter 32-22, N.D.C.C. Both prisoners were placed in administrative isolation (referred to by the parties as AI) on October 26, 1976, after allegedly being found in possession of marijuana within the confines of the penitentiary 11 days earlier. The AI unit exists pursuant to Section 505, North Dakota State Penitentiary Administrative Regulations (November 28, 1975, as amended February 27, 1976), which reads: In compliance with paragraph 10 of the above regulation, the status of both Schroeder and Collins was reviewed on November 26 and December 23, 1976, and on January 18, 1977. The decision was made following each review to retain the prisoners in AI. The reasons given for continuing Schroeder and Collins in AI ranged from a flat recommendation that each "continue in AI with periodic reviews" to a conclusion that the prisoner "is still considered a threat to the security of the institution." Schroeder and Collins maintain that this is not sufficient to provide due process; that the reasons for continuance and identification of criteria and standards employed in reaching the determination must be provided in writing. This position was essentially approved by the district court in issuing the writ. The court, in its memorandum opinion, relies heavily upon Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S. Ct. 2963, 41 L. Ed. 2d 935 (1974). In that case, revocation of a State prisoner's good-time credit for satisfactory behavior while in prison, where the right to good-time credit was statutorily created by the State and it recognized that its deprivation was a sanction for major misconduct, the Court found that the prisoner had a Fourteenth Amendment "liberty" interest entitling him to minimum due process procedural rights. Pertinent parts of the district court's memorandum opinion follow: *757 In considering whether or not a supervisory writ should issue, we must determine if an adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise is available. This court, in Green v. Wiese, 78 N.W.2d 776 (N.D.1956), said: Both parties before us have proceeded as though they do not dispute that our jurisdiction over this matter is in the nature of a general superintending control over an inferior court. That such is our role has been clear since this court decided State ex rel. City of Bismarck v. District Court in and for Burleigh County, 64 N.D. 399, 253 N.W. 744 (1934). It is true that Section 86 of the North Dakota Constitution, relied upon in that case as conferring such power of superintending control, was amended in the primary election of September 7, 1976. This court has recognized, however, that the amendment to Section 86 has not affected this power. See Kuhn v. Beede, 249 N.W.2d 230 (N.D.1976); State ex rel. Olson v. Thompson, 248 N.W.2d 347 (N.D.1976). As to our scope of review, we held in State ex rel. City of Bismarck that: As the language suggests, we will exercise our superintending jurisdiction through a supervisory writ where the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is predicated upon an error of law. The district court's order was based upon a determination that placement of Collins and Schroeder in AI deprived them of certain liberties guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, entitling them to certain minimum procedures appropriate under the circumstances. The district court's memorandum opinion states that "administrative isolation involves loss of privileges normally afforded inmates, together with greater restrictions on freedom of movement and communication". Nowhere does the trial court enunciate what lost privileges or restricted freedom triggered these Fourteenth Amendment safeguards. A brief submitted to the district court by the prisoners did, however, claim that institutional employment is precluded and that opportunities for education, visitation, and exercise are hampered. These same grievances are addressed in the brief they submitted to this court. We are informed that Collins worked in the hobby shop and in the kitchen before being placed in AI, while Schroeder was employed in the prison's sign shop. Apparently neither prisoner was taking advantage of any educational opportunities prior to being placed in AI, but counsel informs us that at least one of them is now interested in taking a class. Though the district court, in its memorandum opinion, relied only upon Wolff v. McDonnell, supra, counsel for Collins and Schroeder stresses Kelly v. Brewer, 525 F.2d 394 (8th Cir. 1975), a case involving prisoners who had been placed in "administrative segregation" at the Iowa State Penitentiary. In Kelly, the Court of Appeals held that due process required that a determination that a prisoner be placed in administrative segregation be made by the warden, and that in making such a determination he should set out his reasons therefor, identifying the criteria and standards employed in reaching his determination. We do not, however, consider the Iowa State Penitentiary administrative segregation necessarily equivalent to the AI unit in *758 North Dakota. We see striking contrasts. Kelly's conditions of confinement at first were described by the Federal District Court as "subhuman and subanimal"; where he was confined in a dark cell, naked, and without sanitary facilities except for a built-in commode. Though the Court of Appeals did not reach this question, the district court held that this treatment constituted "cruel and unusual punishment". Apparently conditions gradually improved, but Kelly rarely was permitted outside his cell. Kelly v. Brewer, 378 F. Supp. 447 (S.D. Ia.1974). In the instant case, no such extreme treatment is even alleged. Counsel for the prisoners stated during oral argument that, "I don't want to pretend the conditions out at the North Dakota Penitentiary were the same as the ones in Kelly v. Brewer". He said that the situations are, however, comparable in that they both involve administrative segregation as opposed to a disciplinary action. Collins and Schroeder maintain that circumstances indicate that their confinement in AI is for the purpose of punishing them rather than for the security of the institution. We can find no such conclusion in the memorandum opinion of the district court. It may help put things in perspective, however, to view conditions in AI as argued by the prisoners and set forth in Section 505(6), North Dakota State Penitentiary Administrative Regulations, supra, as compared to those prescribed for disciplinary segregation in Inmate Handbook, North Dakota State Penitentiary and State Farm 29-30 (January, 1977): We realize that the prisoners do not ask much more procedurally than was given them. They ask only that they be given, in writing, reasons for continuance in AI, as well as identification of the criteria and standards employed in reaching the determination. Section 505(10), North Dakota State Penitentiary Administrative Regulations, supra, specifically states that recommendations for continuance in AI or release to the general population be submitted to the warden "with the reasons clearly stated". Although it does not appear from our reading of the regulations that this directive was followed here, the warden acknowledges in his brief that "The State is willing to concede that record entries need improvement to better document the action taken and the reason for such action. . .." In light of this concession, we get the impression that the warden has not requested us to quash the district court's order because of what that order requires of him so much as because it represents a judicial intrusion into prison administration. This concern, which was argued forcefully in the brief and in oral argument, is a legitimate one. The administration of a penitentiary is a singular responsibility, many aspects of which are completely outside the experience of a layman, an attorney, or a judge. For this reason, even well-intentioned judicial intervention into the workings of a prison could create problems. *760 A warden must sometimes act quickly to avoid an explosive situation within the prison. He must sometimes base decisions upon conclusions stemming from his experience, and may not be able to always specifically identify the criteria upon which his decision is based. The warden testified to the district court that prisoners are not placed in AI for specific violations but only "when it is part of a pattern, when we have reason to believe it is part of a bigger problem." He stated that Collins and Schroeder were suspected of trafficking in narcotics, and that this was a serious problem at the penitentiary. He said that narcotics had been found in Collins' cell before and that Collins' financial transactions indicated he could be involved in drug dealings.[1] It would appear that the warden had reason to believe that these prisoners were involved in the drug problem, but he had no strong proof. He apparently believed that the placement of Collins and Schroeder in AI would help alleviate the problem. On the other hand, though the nature and requirements of the institution require a diminution of the prisoners' rights, imprisonment does not preclude certain constitutional protections. Wolff v. McDonnell, supra, and cases cited therein. Wolff, after balancing institutional interests against the need for certain due process procedures as required in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S. Ct. 2593, 33 L. Ed. 2d 484 (1972), determined that certain requirements of Morrissey were not appropriate. It would require a similar analysis, should it be determined that due process was violated in this case, to determine the minimum procedures required. We believe, however, that the United States Supreme Court has determined that the present situation is not subject to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Our reading of Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 96 S. Ct. 2532, 49 L. Ed. 2d 451 (1976), leads us to conclude that Collins and Schroeder, by their placement in AI, were not deprived of a "liberty" interest within the meaning of the Due Process Clause. In Meachum, prisoners were transferred from a medium security institution within the Massachusetts prison system to a maximum security institution in the same system. It is noteworthy that one of the prisoners was suspected of trafficking in drugs and was originally assigned to administrative segregation before it was decided that he be sent to a maximum security institution along with the others. Though the prisoners were afforded a hearing, they claimed it did not reach due process standards. Justice White, writing for the majority, did not reach a determination of appropriate standards, as he concluded that the deprivations complained of were not sufficient to invoke the procedural protections of due process. In his opinion, Justice White said: Though Meachum involved transfer between two prisons rather than between two areas of one prison, we deem it dispositive of the Constitutional Due Process issue in the instant case. The focus of our inquiry is not on whether or not the prisoners were moved a great distance. Meachum says the nature of the loss to the prisoner determines whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies. Accord, Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S. Ct. 2701, 33 L. Ed. 2d 548 (1972). Meachum cannot, therefore, be distinguished on the ground that it involved an inter-prison transfer rather than an intra-prison transfer. See Cooper v. Riddle, 540 F.2d 731 (4th Cir. 1976); Franklin v. Fortner, 541 F.2d 494 (5th Cir. 1976). In Meachum the losses complained of resemble those complained of by Collins and Schroeder: Loss of employment and contact with counselors as well as generally more restrictive conditions. Id. at 96 S. Ct. 2543 n. 5. Notwithstanding that we have thus concluded that the privileges of which the prisoners herein have been denied do not invoke the protection of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, we believe that in applying paragraph 10, Section 505 of the prison regulations, the reasons for continuing the prisoners in AI could have been and should have been more specifically explained in writing. If to do so would have constituted a serious risk to the security of the institution, that statement should have been made in lieu thereof. We believe that an institution which is established not only as a confinement facility, but as a rehabilitation facility which adopts rules by which discipline therein is to be maintained with incentives for good conduct not only while a prisoner is in the institution, but also, hopefully, when the prisoner is released, should conscientiously attempt to follow its own rules. It is our view that when those rules are followed, especially when they have been officially promulgated and distributed to the inmates of the institution and to its officers and employees as the law within the institution,[2] respect for the law is enhanced, but where those rules are not followed, respect for the law is diminished. Accord, State ex rel. Independent School District v. Johnson, 242 Minn. 539, 65 N.W.2d 668, 673 (1954). We accordingly quash the writ of the trial court, but in so doing, we substitute our writ directing the warden to forthwith enter upon the appropriate records of the State Penitentiary, more specific reasons for the continuous retention of the prisoners in AI subject to what we have heretofore said herein, permitting an exception when the security of the institution requires that specific reasons not be given. The writ of the trial court dated February 11, 1977, requiring the release of the prisoners from administrative isolation, is hereby quashed and the clerk of this court is hereby directed to issue a writ from this court, pursuant to this opinion. VOGEL, PEDERSON, PAULSON and SAND, JJ., concur. [1] These considerations apparently first surfaced after the writ of habeas corpus was applied for. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the prisoners were so apprised prior to applying for the writ. [2] Authority and procedure for promulgation of administrative regulations by the warden are set forth in Section 12-47-12, N.D.C.C. The warden is, however, not subject to the Administrative Agencies Practice Act. See Section 28-32-01(2), N.D.C.C.