* This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### April 4, 2006
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

__________________________ JAMES WILLIAM HILL, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. MR. FLEMING (Lieutenant); E.J. GALLEGOS (Warden); C. GOMEZ (Captain); MR. BEHRENS (Lieutenant); MR. WILSON (Lieutenant); MR. HANCOCK (Lieutenant); MR. GALLATY (Lieutenant); DR. BAILEY (Psychologist); MS. HOLINKA (Associate Warden); MR. G. CLARK (Unit Manager); MR. F. OWENS (Unit Counselor), Defendants-Appellees. No. 04-1166 (D. Colo.) (D.Ct. No. 02-F-2438 (PAC))

____________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before HARTZ , Circuit Judge, andMcWILLIAMS and BRORBY , Senior Circuit Judges.

Appellant James William Hill appeals the district c ourt’s grant of summary-2-

judgment in favor of the Appellees, officials of th e Federal Bureau of Prisons, on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging the conditions and duration of his 399-day administrative detention, together with the federal prison regulations in 28 C.F.R. § 541.22, created a liberty interest triggering pro cedural due process protections which the prison officials violated. Exercising ou r jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

I. Background We begin with the undisputed facts relevant to Mr. Hill’s § 1983 action and summary judgment disposition. Mr. Hill is serving an eighty-four month sentence with the Federal Bureau of Prisons for distributionof cocaine base and from September 29, 2000, until March 14, 2002, was confi ned at the Federal Correctional Institution in Florence, Colorado. OnFebruary 16, 2001, prison officials placed Mr. Hill in a dry cell on suspicio n he ingested narcotics; they then issued an order advising he would remain in the drycell until they determined whether he introduced narcotics into the institutio n. The next day, February 17, 2001, prison officials recovered from Mr. Hill's fe ces two balloons which contained marijuana. Prison officials then suspend ed preparation of a disciplinary report against Mr. Hill pending an investigation bythe Federal Bureau of Investigation for possible criminal prosecution andplaced Mr. Hill in1 While Mr. Hill cursorily complains on appeal abou t the length of time it

took to investigate the incident, the § 1983 action in this case is against the named prison officials and not the agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who conducted the one-year investigation of which he no w complains.

2 Mr Hill, in his pro se complaint, and the federal magistrate judge calculated Mr. Hill’s confinement at 391 days, whil e we and Mr. Hill’s counsel calculate it at 399 days. Although sixty days of t his confinement occurred after Mr. Hill's hearing for narcotics possession and pri or to his disciplinary transfer, neither party suggests the sixty days not be consid ered for summary judgment purposes. -3- administrative detention pending the investigation, as required under 28 C.F.R. §§ 541.14(b)(1) and 541.22.

Almost one year later, on January 9, 2002, the Fede ral Bureau of Investigation declined to prosecute Mr. Hill on dru g charges and released the discipline report for processing. 1 Six days later, on January 15, 2002, a prison disciplinary officer held a hearing on the charges in the report, found Mr. Hill violated a prison offense code for possession of narcotics, and recommended a disciplinary transfer. Mr. Hill remained in admini strative detention until his disciplinary transfer to another institution on Mar ch 14, 2002. In total, Mr. Hill spent 399 days in administrative detention at the F lorence facility. 2

A factual dispute arises over the conditions of Mr. Hill’s administrative detention. First, in his verified and sworn compla int, Mr. Hill alleged officials-4-

confined him to his cell twenty-four hours a day ex cept for one hour of exercise each day, five days a week. He further alleged off icials denied him sick calls; educational, work and visitation privileges; and us e of the telephone, commissary, law and other library, and recreation area availabl e to inmates in the general population. In contrast, prison officials generall y claimed the conditions in administrative detention are “as close to those in the general population as possible, with the large exception of keeping the i nmates separated from others for security purposes,” and pointed out prison regu lations prescribe the conditions for inmates in administrative detention, which incl ude five hours of recreation a week and privileges to make telephone calls, send a nd receive mail, participate in educational and religious activities in their cells , and retain a certain amount of personal property. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 540.16, 540.50, 540.100, 541.21(c)(6), and 541.22(d). However, the officials did not explicit ly state Mr. Hill himself experienced the same conditions prescribed in the r egulations or in comparison with other inmates in either administrative detenti on or the general prison population. Prison officials also did not submit e vidence showing 399 days in administrative detention is typical.

With respect to procedural due process, Mr. Hill al leged he filed an administrative grievance complaining prison officia ls denied him periodic review-5-

hearings and psychiatric or psychological assessments required by 28 C.F.R. § 541.22(c). He claimed he withdrew his grievance when a prison official summoned him to his office, told him segregation re view officers were “in trouble” for failing to provide him the required mo nthly hearings, and if he did not drop his grievance, the Federal Bureau of Inves tigation would reconsider its decision not to criminally prosecute him and cause him to remain in administrative detention for several more months. In response, prison officials claimed, by declaration and through submission of p eriodic review forms, that Mr. Hill received three-day, seven-day, weekly and thirty-day reviews, as well as psychological assessments, as required by § 541.22( c), for the time period in question. In both his verified complaint and pro se response to the prison officials’ motion for summary judgment, Mr. Hill al leged prison employees simply slipped informal review forms under his cell door, denying him an opportunity to be heard during any of the reviews; he also alleged he never received the psychiatric assessments referenced in the psychological reviews submitted.

Following briefing on the prison officials’ motion for summary judgment, a magistrate judge determined, and the district courtagreed, Mr. Hill raised facts in his verified complaint sufficient to establish a di spute of facts over whether-6-

officials created a liberty interest triggering Fif th Amendment procedural due process rights which the officials denied. Nonethe less, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the prison officials o n the grounds of qualified immunity, holding Mr. Hill failed to show a constit utional or statutory right was clearly established when the alleged violation occu rred.

This appeal followed, in which we appointed counsel for Mr. Hill. On appeal, Mr. Hill contests the district court’s summ ary judgment decision, reiterating his contention the atypical conditions and duration of his confinement, together with the prison regulations prescribed in 28 C.F.R. § 541.22(c), created a liberty interest which triggered procedural due pro cess protections which the prison officials violated. He also argues these sa me officials are not entitled to qualified immunity because the law creating a liberty interest and the requisite procedural due process protections was clearly established at the time of his confinement.

II. Discussion

A. Summary Judgment Standard of Review To begin, we review de novo the district court’s summary judgment decision, examining the record and drawing all reas onable inferences in the light-7-

most favorable to the non-moving party. See Palladium Music, Inc. v. EatSleepMusic, Inc. , 398 F.3d 1193, 1196 (10th Cir. 2005). Summary ju dgment is appropriate if the record shows there is no genu ine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a m atter of law. Id. (relying on Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) andCelotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)). In reviewing summary judgment motions, we look at the parties’ respective burdens. Concerning claims of individual liability, movants for summary judgment bear the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a ge nuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. See Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 144 F.3d 664, 670-71 (10th Cir. 1998). If this ini tial burden is carried, the nonmovant may not rest solely on his pleadings, butmust set out specific facts in support of his claims by reference to affidavits, d eposition transcripts or other exhibits incorporated therein. Id. at 671. We have held a verified complaint stating facts admissible at trial and based on pers onal knowledge has the same force and effect as an affidavit for the purpose of responding to a motion for summary judgment. See Conaway v. Smith , 853 F.2d 789, 792 (10th Cir. 1988).

We apply the burdens of the parties differently on claims of qualified immunity. See Olsen v. Layton Hills Mall , 312 F.3d 1304, 1311 (10th Cir. 2002). “When a § 1983 defendant raises the defense of qual ified immunity on summary3 In cases where we found insufficient evidence in the record to make a

determination concerning the conditions or durationof administrative detention, (continued...) -8- judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to sho w that 1) the official violated a constitutional or statutory right; and 2) the const itutional or statutory right was clearly established when the alleged violation occu rred.” Id. at 1311-12 (citation omitted). To determine whether the right was clear ly established, “[t]he relevant, dispositive inquiry ... is whether it would be clea r to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted .” Saucier v. Katz , 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001). In considering summary judgment d eterminations, we may affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgme nt for any reason supported by the record. See Baca v. Sklar , 398 F.3d 1210, 1216 (10th Cir. 2005).

B. Liberty Interest Decisions In the instant case, the parties rely on a bevy of Tenth Circuit published and unpublished cases, as well as other circuit cases, to discern the applicable law with respect to the administrative detention at iss ue, the liberty interest created, and the degree of procedural due process to be affo rded Mr. Hill. However, based on the dispute of material facts identified b y the district court, we deem it inappropriate under the circumstances to grant summ ary judgment on the issue of whether a liberty interest exists implicating proce dural due process guarantees. 33 (...continued)

we remanded the evidentiary issue to the district c ourts. See Gaines v. Stenseng , 292 F.3d 1222, 1224 (10th Cir. 2002); Perkins v. Kan. Dep't of Corr. , 165 F.3d 803, 809 (10th Cir. 1999); Jones v. Orth , 242 F.3d 389, 2000 WL 1854015, at *2 (10th Cir. Dec. 19, 2000) (unpublished op.); Chappell v. McKune , 132 F.3d 42, 1997 WL 787184, at *2 (10th Cir. Dec. 24, 1997) (unpublished op.); Clemmons v. Thomas , 86 F.3d 1166, 1996 WL 282304, at *4 (10th Cir. May 29, 1996) (unpublished op.). In this case, we are able to ma ke a summary judgment determination on the issue of qualified immunity.

-9- However, for the purpose of resolving the issue of qualified immunity, we provide a cursory examination of the cases cited by the parties to assess whether the district court correctly concluded the constitution al or statutory right at issue was not clearly established when the alleged violation occurred. See Olsen , 312 F.3d
at 1312.

To begin, it is well-established lawfully incarcerated persons, like Mr. Hill, retain only a “‘narrow range of protected liberty i nterests.’” Abbott v. McCotter , 13 F.3d 1439, 1442 (10th Cir. 1994) (quoting Hewitt v. Helms , 459 U.S. 460, 467 (1983)). The Supreme Court has determined “[t]he D ue Process Clause standing alone confers no liberty interest in freedom from s tate action taken within the sentence imposed.” Sandin v. Conner , 515 U.S. 472, 480 (1995) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Generally, “the transfer of an inmate to less amenable and more restrictive quarters for nonpunitive reasons i s well within the terms of-10-

confinement ordinarily contemplated by a prison sen tence,” and therefore, “administrative segregation is the sort of confinem ent ... inmates should reasonably anticipate receiving at some point in th eir incarceration,” and does not involve an interest independently protected by the Due Process Clause. Hewitt, 459 U.S. at 468. Nevertheless, pursuant to the Sup reme Court’s decision in Sandin , the government may create a liberty interest prot ected by the Due Process Clause, but this interest is generally limited to f reedom from restraint that “imposes atypical and significant hardship on the i nmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin , 515 U.S. at 484. It is important to note that under Hewittand prior to Sandin , “the analysis of whether a prisoner was deprived of a liberty interest focused not on t he nature of the deprivation experienced by the prisoner, but on the language of the applicable prison regulations and whether such language was ‘mandatory.’” Beverati v. Smith , 120 F.3d 500, 503 n.3 (4th Cir. 1997) (relying on Sandin , 515 U.S. at 479-81). “The Supreme Court mandate since Sandin is that henceforth we are to review ... liberty interest claims arising from prison conditi ons by asking whether the prison condition complained of presents ‘the type of atypi cal, significant deprivation in which a State might conceivably create a liberty in terest.’” Cosco v. Uphoff , 195 F.3d 1221, 1224 (10th Cir. 1999) (quoting Sandin , 515 U.S. at 486).4 Although this is not an issue presented on appeal , another consideration

in determining if a liberty interest is created is whether the detention increased the length or duration of the sentence imposed. See generally Wilson v. Jones , 430 F.3d 1113, 1120-21 (10th Cir. 2005) ; Gaines , 292 F.3d at 1225 (relying on Sandin , 515 U.S. at 487); Jones v. Baker , 155 F.3d 810, 812 (6th Cir. 1998).

5 See, e.g., Gaines , 292 F.3d at 1226 (remanding on grounds the distri ct (continued...) -11- In determining whether an atypical deprivation has occurred, we acknowledge most of our decisions are unpublished and provide little analysis; however, like the parties on appeal, we consider th em for the purpose of determining the existing law on which prison offici als could rely at the time of Mr. Hill’s confinement. While we generally disfavo r reliance on unpublished decisions, such reliance is appropriate where, like here, they provide persuasive value with respect to a material issue not fully ad dressed in a published decision and they assist in our disposition of the issues athand. 10th Cir. R. 36.3(B).

To begin, it is clear this court examines the natur e of the deprivation by considering the conditions of confinement, includin g both the duration and degree of restrictions of that confinement, as compared wi th other inmates. 4 See Perkins , 165 F.3d at 809. When considering whether the conditions, duration or restrictions are atypical as compared with other in mates, we have considered as a baseline whether the segregation at issue mirrors that imposed on other inmates in the same segregation , 5 while at other times we have made comparisons with the5 (...continued)

court should examine conditions of confinement and suggesting inquiry is whether the segregated inmate’s conditions mirror those of other inmates in administrative segregation); Blum v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons , 189 F.3d 477, 1999 WL 638232, at *3 (10th Cir. Aug. 23, 1999) (unpubli shed op.) (concluding conditions in disciplinary confinement did not diff er in significant degree with those of other inmates, with inference towards comp arison with others in similar segregation).

6 See, e.g., Penrod v. Zavaras , 94 F.3d 1399, 1407 (10th Cir. 1996) (basing its determination, in part, on fact inmates in admi nistrative segregation, while living in more restrictive conditions , received “all of the same privileges as the general population inmates”); Villarreal v. Harrison , 201 F.3d 449, 1999 WL 1063830, at *2 (10th Cir. Nov. 23, 1999) (unpublish ed op.) (concluding conditions were not dramatically different from tho se in the general population).

7See Wilkinson v. Austin , ___ U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 2384, 2394 (2005) (discussing but not deciding disagreement between c ircuits on using baseline comparisons involving either administrative detenti on populations or general prison populations); Skinner v. Cunningham , 430 F.3d 483, 486-87 (1st Cir. 2005) (noting disagreement between circuits on baseline c omparisons).

8 See Resnick v. Hayes , 213 F.3d 443, 448 (9th Cir. 2000); Hatch v. District of Columbia , 184 F.3d 846, 857-58 (D.C. Cir. 1999); Colon v. Howard, 215 F.3d 227, 231 (2d Cir. 2000); Jones v. Baker , 155 F.3d at 813 (6th Cir.); Griffin v. Vaughn , 112 F.3d 703, 706 & n.2 (3d Cir. 1997).

9 See Beverati , 120 F.3d at 504 (4th Cir.); Keenan v. Hall , 83 F.3d 1083, 1089 (9th Cir. 1996). -12- general prison population

. 6 Other circuits grappling with the same baseline iss ue have had mixed results, 7either relying squarely on comparisons with other inmates in the same administrative segregation 8 or those in the general population

. 9 In this case, despite the parties’ opposing conte ntions on which baseline applies, the result is the same, no matterwhich baseline is used. We-13-

reach this conclusion because regardless of which b aseline we previously applied in making comparisons — either segregated or genera l prison populations — this circuit has never held the conditions, duration or restrictions of the detentions presented on appeal created a liberty interest, eve n in circumstances where the detention exceeded the 399-day duration of Mr. Hill ’s detention or restricted some of the same privileges. See, e.g. , Thomas v. Gunja , 110 Fed. Appx. 74, 75-76 (10th Cir. Sept. 14, 2004) (unpublished op.) (rulin g transfer to a restrictive unit of another prison did not create atypical circumstance for purpose of creating a liberty interest); Weatherall v. Scherbarth , 208 F.3d 228, 2000 WL 223576, at **1-2 (10th Cir. Feb. 28, 2000) (unpublished op.) ( finding no liberty interest in reclassification into administrative segregation); Blum , 1999 WL 638232, at *3 (considering disciplinary detention and concluding ninety-day confinement without store privileges, radio, and phone calls as enjoyed by other inmates in segregation did not differ in significant degree an d duration to create a protected liberty interest); Villarreal , 1999 WL 1063830, at *2 & n.1 (upholding summary judgment decision explaining two-year duration of a dministrative detention, even with conditions involving restricted telephone priv ileges and eating alone in cell, did not establish conditions dramatically differentfrom those in the general population); Chappell v. McKune , 201 F.3d 447, 1999 WL 1079618, at *1 (10th Cir. Nov. 30, 1999) (unpublished op.), aff'g1999 WL 381802, at *2 (D. Kan. May-14-

26, 1999) (affirming district court decision on sum mary judgment which held inmate’s lengthy stay of approximately 1000 days in administrative segregation was not atypical given inmate received all the priv ileges and incentives commensurate with his same security level); Gutierrez v. Shanks , 153 F.3d 727, 1998 WL 380958, at *2 (10th Cir. July 9, 1998) (unp ublished op.) (instructing in a motion to dismiss case that administrative segreg ation for over one year was not sufficient to distinguish confinement from that of other inmates for the purpose of creating a liberty interest); Klein v. Coblentz , 132 F.3d 42, 1997 WL 767538, at *3 (10th Cir. Nov. 19, 1997) (unpublished op.) (dec iding 584-day administrative segregation failed to raise due process issue for s ummary judgment purposes); Jones v. Fields , 104 F.3d 367, 1996 WL 731240, at **1-2 (10th Cir. Dec. 20, 1996) (unpublished op.) (holding fifteen-month admi nistrative segregation did not impose atypical and significant hardship on inmate for purpose of summary judgment disposition).

Other circuits have also largely held no liberty in terest arose in administrative detentions presented on appeal — eve n in situations where the conditions were worse or the duration longer than i n Mr. Hill’s case. See, e.g. , Jones v. Baker , 155 F.3d at 812-13 (6th Cir.) (upholding administrative segregation over 900 days as not “atypical” under t he Due Process Clause, given-15-

confinement was not much different than experienced by other inmates in segregation); Griffin , 112 F.3d at 706-09 (3d Cir.) (concluding fifteen- month administrative segregation was within the “expected parameters of the sentence imposed on him” and that the Pennsylvania regulatio ns on such confinement did not deprive him of a liberty interest or entitlemen t to procedural due process);
Beverati , 120 F.3d at 504 (4th Cir.) (determining six-monthplacement in administrative segregation was not atypical compare d with the general prison population even though officials kept inmates in th eir cells except for three to four times each week; denied them outside recreatio n, educational and religious services, warm or large portions of food, and clean clothing and bedding; and inmates’ cells were infested with vermin, smeared w ith human feces and urine, flooded with water, and unbearably hot); Pichardo v. Kinker , 73 F.3d 612, 613 (5th Cir. 1996) (concluding inmate’s contention that Texas prison policies on administrative segregation created a protectable li berty interest lacked an arguable basis in law or fact, and that “[i]n the wake of Sandin , ... administrative segregation, without more, simply does not constitute a deprivation of a constitutionally cognizable liberty interest”).

While most circuits have generally rejected inmate contentions of liberty interest violations while in administrative detenti on, Mr. Hill relies on two circuit-16-

court decisions which concluded otherwise based sol ely on the duration of the disciplinary detention at issue. In Colon v. Howard, the Second Circuit considered the duration of an inmate’s 305-day disc iplinary segregation in solitary confinement and simply stated, without analysis, itwas “unaware of any data showing that New York frequently removes prisoners from the general population for as long as ... 305 days.” 215 F.3d at 231. Itheld such a long segregation was a “sufficient departure from the ordinary incidents of prison life to require procedural due process protections.” Id. In Williams v. Fountain , the Eleventh Circuit, in a footnote, merely “assumed” the inmate in question suffered a liberty interest deprivation entitling him to due process b ecause his disciplinary sanctions included a full year of solitary confinement. 77 F .3d 372, 374 n.3 (11th Cir. 1996). Because these two cases involve disciplinary detentions only and merely help counter the liberty interest determinations ma de in our and other circuits, they do not irrefutably clarify the established law at the time of Mr. Hill’s administrative detention.

The law on whether certain adverse conditions of co nfinement create a liberty interest continues to develop, as evidenced by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Wilkinson v. Austin . In Wilkinson , the Court determined the government created a liberty interest subject to pr ocedural due process protections-17-

when officials placed an inmate indefinitely in a s uper-max prison where almost all human contact was prohibited and which made him ineligible for parole. See ___ U.S. at ___, 125 S. Ct. at 2393-94. Obviously, the duration and conditions of Mr. Hill’s administrative detention were not as one rous, nor was the duration of his sentence affected. More importantly, for the p urpose of determining qualified immunity, the prison officials in Mr. Hill’s case d id not have the benefit of the
2005 Wilkinson decision or any of its implications on prisoners’ liberty interests at the time of Mr. Hill’s confinement. Thus, based on the wealth of cases considered, the established law at the time of Mr. Hill's confinement would not put prison officials on notice of a liberty interes t created by the type of deprivation presented, including the 399-day durati on or other conditions of his confinement.

C. Application of 28 C.F.R. § 541.22 Because Mr. Hill also argues 28 C.F.R. § 541.22(c) provides a “statecreated” liberty right, our analysis of the establi shed law at the time of Mr. Hill’s confinement does not end with a discussion of the d uration, restrictions or other conditions of his detention, but continues with an examination of § 541.22(c) itself. As previously noted, prior to Sandin , a deprivation analysis of an inmate’s liberty interest focused on the language of the state or federal prison regulations-18-

and whether it was mandatory, as opposed to the sub sequentSandin requirement that the court look to the nature of the deprivatio n experienced by the inmate. See
Beverati , 120 F.3d at 503 n.3. The Supreme Court in Sandin explained the problem in applying the regulation language method, stating “[b]y shifting the focus of the liberty interest inquiry to one based on the language of a particular regulation, and not the nature of the deprivation, the Court encouraged prisoners to comb regulations in search of mandatory language on which to base entitlements to various state-conferred privileges. ” 515 U.S. at 481. Nevertheless, since its decision in Sandin, the Supreme Court has acknowledged “a liberty interest in avoiding particular conditio ns of confinement may arise from state policies or regulations, subject to the important limitations set forth in Sandin ” but explained “[a]fter Sandin , it is clear that the touchstone of the inquiry into the existence of a protected, state-created li berty interest in avoiding restrictive conditions of confinement is not the la nguage of regulations regarding those conditions but the nature of those conditions themselves.” Wilkinson , ___ U.S. at ___, 125 S. Ct. at 2393-94. Therefore, we consider the established law with respect to § 541.22(c) as it existed at the ti me of Mr. Hill’s confinement, keeping in mind the Supreme Court’s strictures on c onsidering the mandatory language of such regulations in a post- Sandin world.-19-

To begin, this and other circuits have looked at wh ether 28 C.F.R. § 541.22(c) creates a liberty interest. Section 54 1.22 provides, in relevant part: (c) Review of Inmates Housed in Administrative Dete ntion. (1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (c)( 2) and (c)(3) of this section, the Segregation Review Official will review the status of inmates housed in administrative detention. The SR O shall conduct a record review within three work days of the inmate’ s placement in administrative detention and shall hold a hearing a nd formally review the status of each inmate who spends seven continuo us days in administrative detention, and thereafter shall revi ew these cases on the record (in the inmate’s absence) each week, and shall hold a hearing and review these cases formally at least ev ery 30 days. The inmate appears before the SRO at the hearing unless the inmate waives the right to appear. A waiver may be in wri ting, signed by the inmate, or if the inmate refuses to sign a waiv er, it shall be shown by a memorandum signed by staff and witnessedby a second staff member indicating the inmate’s refusal to app ear at the hearing. Staff shall conduct a psychiatric or psychological assessment including a personal interview, when administrative detention continues beyond 30 days. The assessment, submitte d to the SRO in a written report, shall address the inmate’s adjustment to surroundings and the threat the inmate poses to sel f, staff and other inmates. Staff shall conduct a similar psychiatric or psychological assessment and report at subsequent one-month intervals should detention continue for this extended period. Admin istrative detention is to be used only for short periods of t ime except where an inmate needs long-term protection (see § 541.23), o r where there are exceptional circumstances, ordinarily tied to secur ity or complex investigative concerns. An inmate may be kept in a dministrative detention for longer term protection only if the ne ed for such protection is documented by the SRO. Provided inst itutional security is not compromised, the inmate shall receive at eac h formal review a written copy of the SRO’s decision and the basis fo r this finding. The SRO shall release an inmate from administrative detention when reasons for placement cease to exist.
Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Sandin , this court rendered an-20-

unpublished decision in Moore v. Ham, in which we determined § 541.22 did not grant inmates a liberty interest in remaining in th e general prison population and, alternatively, that the government did not deny the inmate in question due process under § 541.22, given the inmate received the requi red three-day review and was returned to the general prison population within th ree days. 986 F.2d 1428, 1993 WL 5874, at *1 (10th Cir. Jan. 12, 1993) (unpublish ed op.). Since entry of that decision and the Supreme Court’s decision in Sandin , this court has not directly addressed the liberty and due process interests aff orded by 28 C.F.R. § 541.22(c) in a published opinion. Instead, in an unpublisheddecision, we declined to consider an inmate’s contentions § 541.22 created aliberty interest or afforded due process protections and held “a [prison officia l’s] failure to adhere to administrative regulations does not equate to a con stitutional violation.” See Malik v. Kindt , 76 F.3d 393, 1996 WL 41828, at *2 (10th Cir. Feb. 2, 1996) (unpublished op.) (quoting Hovater v. Robinson , 1 F.3d 1063, 1068 n.4 (10th Cir. 1993)). In another unpublished case, this court ge nerally determined “[n]either the Due Process Clause of the Constitution, nor the federal regulations governing placement of inmates in administrative detention, p rovide an inmate with a liberty interest in remaining in the general prison populat ion.” Villarreal , 1999 WL 1063830, at *2.-21-

While this court has never definitively decided the liberty and due process implications of § 541.22 in a published opinion, a few circuits have. In Crowder
v. True , the Seventh Circuit applied the principles in Sandin to conclude periodic review of administrative detention placement under § 541.22(c) bears none of the pivotal characteristics of an atypical and signific ant hardship on prisoners in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life o r a dramatic departure from the basic conditions or duration of the prisoner’s sent ence, and therefore, it did not create a constitutionally protected liberty interes t. 74 F.3d 812, 815 (7th Cir. 1996). In so concluding, the court determined the regulation did not subject prisoners to more burdensome conditions but to “the normal limits or range of custody which the conviction has authorized the gov ernment to impose.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).

In contrast, nearly five years later, in Tellier v. Fields , the Second Circuit concluded, without discussion, that a prisoner’s 51 4-day confinement in administrative detention under conditions markedly different than those in the general population was atypical and significant forthe purpose of creating a liberty interest. 280 F.3d 69, 80 (2d Cir. 2000). It also held, with relatively much more analysis, the mandatory language in § 541.22 c reated a liberty interest requiring adherence to certain prerequisites and pr ocedures. Id. at 80-83. In10 We also note the courts in both Tellier andMagluta , unlike here, denied

the prison officials qualified immunity but are dis tinguishable from this case. In Tellier , the Second Circuit based its determination prison officials were not subject to qualified immunity based on the fact the detention occurred before Sandin when existing Second Circuit law on detentions was clearly established, so that even a ten-day confinement period was deemed t o implicate procedural due process rights. 280 F.3d at 84. Similarly, the El eventh Circuit’s decision in Maglutadenying qualified immunity to the prison officials involved was based on (continued...) -22- considering § 541.22, it is clear the Tellier court focused on the mandatory language of the regulation rather than the nature o f the deprivation. Id. at 80-81. We also note the court was considering a confinemen t which occurred between 1992 and 1994 and, therefore, was prior to the Supr eme Court’s 1995 Sandin decision which discouraged concentration solely on the mandatory language of such regulations. Id. at 73, 84. Similarly, in the Eleventh Circuit’s d ecision in Magluta v. Samples , the court also applied pre- Sandin case law to the inmate’s
pre- Sandin confinement to determine § 541.22 contained the su bstantive predicates and mandatory language sufficient to cre ate a liberty interest in remaining in the general prison population. 375 F. 3d 1269, 1280-82 & n.8 (11th Cir. 2004). Obviously, because these cases conside red § 541.22 under the preSandin mandatory language analysis, with little concentration on the nature of the deprivation as required under Sandin , they are not persuasive in analyzing the established law during the post- Sandin period of Mr. Hill’s 2001-2002 confinement. 10 As the Supreme Court suggests, the touchstone sin ce Sandin must10 (...continued)

pre-Sandin precepts, given the detention at issue ended two m onths prior to the Supreme Court’s issuance of the Sandin decision. 375 F.3d at 1283-84. Unlike those cases, Mr. Hill’s detention occurred six year s after the Supreme Court’s Sandin case, so we examine existing post- Sandin , rather than pre- Sandin , law to make our determination of whether the constitutiona l right was “clearly established when the alleged violation occurred.” Olsen, 312 F.3d at 1311-12. -23- be the nature of the deprivation rather than the ma ndatory language of the regulation. Wilkinson , ___ U.S. at ___, 125 S. Ct. at 2393-94. In any e vent, because the Eleventh Circuit did not issue its Maglutadecision until 2004, prison officials did not have the benefit of that decision at the time of Mr. Hill’s confinement.

Since Sandin , we have, on at least two occasions, generally eva luated state regulations to determine if they created a liberty or property interest. In Cosco , we considered whether a Wyoming state prison policycreated a constitutionallyprotected right of prisoners to keep property in th eir cells for the purpose of establishing procedural due process rights concerni ng retention of such property. 195 F.3d at 1223-24. In that case, we noted the Supreme Court in Sandin “expressly rejected the [ Hewitt] methodology” of looking to the “mandatory language in statutes or regulations to determine wh ether the right in question rises to a level which can only be withdrawn by observing due process standards.” Id.
at 1223. In Chambers v. Colorado Department of Corrections , we did not-24-

consider the actual language of the prison policy c lassifying prisoners as sex offenders but instead determined the state’s incons istent application of that policy created a liberty interest because officials allowe d an inmate so classified to receive earned time credits but later reduced his e arned time credits based on his refusal to accept his classification. 205 F.3d 123 7, 1239, 1242 (10th Cir. 2000). Neither of these two cases, nor the other cases con sidering § 541.22, would signal to the prison officials in Mr. Hill’s case that § 5 41.22 created a liberty interest under post- Sandin precepts.

D. Qualified Immunity Analysis With the exception of the few circuit court decisio ns favoring Mr. Hill’s position, and without delving further into the unde rlying rationale or distinguishing features of the decisions discussed, it is clear the weight of our and other circuits’ decisions favors the prison officia ls’ position they are entitled to qualified immunity. As illustrated by the numerous Tenth Circuit cases cited, it would not be clear to prison officials whether an a dministrative detention of 399 days under the conditions cited by Mr. Hill, or the requirements in § 541.22(c), would implicate a liberty interest sufficient to wa rrant the procedural due process rights asserted by him. As the district court note d, Tenth Circuit cases existing at the time of Mr. Hill’s detention would not place of ficials on notice of a-25-

deprivation, given none of those decisions found a liberty interest in the detention at issue, even when the duration was much longer th an Mr. Hill’s or involved similar restrictions. Even if prison officials con sidered other circuit court cases at the time of Mr. Hill’s detention, the weight of tho se cases also concluded no liberty interest arose in an administrative detenti on where the conditions were worse or the duration longer than Mr. Hill’s.

As to the differing assessments of § 541.22, it is not apparent the regulation created a liberty interest at the time of Mr. Hill’ s confinement, given this court’s
pre- Sandin decision concluded it created no liberty interest; the Seventh Circuit’s post- Sandin decision held it created no liberty interest; the S econd Circuit based its liberty interest determination almost exclusive ly on the pre- Sandin mandatory language analysis; and the Eleventh Circuit, which similarly applied pre- Sandin precepts, had not issued its 2004 decision in Maglutaat the time of Mr. Hill’s confinement. Under these circumstances, the establ ished law concerning §541.22(c) at the time of Mr. Hill’s detention woul d not place officials on notice it created a liberty interest affording procedural due process protections.

Thus, in assessing the burdens of the parties on th e prison officials’ claims of qualified immunity, we conclude Mr. Hill has notshown the constitutional or-26-

statutory right which he asserts concerning the cre ation of a liberty interest triggering a procedural due process right was “clearly established when the alleged violation occurred.” Olsen, 312 F.3d at 1312. In other words, he has not shown “it would be clear to a reasonable officer th at his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Saucier , 533 U.S. at 202.

III. Conclusion For the reasons articulated in the magistrate judge ’s recommendation, the district court’s decision and those addressed here, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Appellees on the grounds of qualified immunity.

Entered by the Court: WADE BRORBY United States Circuit Judge