Opinion ID: 491786
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: a liberty interest?

Text: 7 The due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Although [l]awful imprisonment necessarily makes unavailable many rights and privileges of the ordinary citizen, prisoners nevertheless may claim the protections of the Due Process Clause. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 555-56, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2974, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). Yet, the fact that prisoners retain rights under the Due Process Clause in no way implies that these rights are not subject to restrictions imposed by the nature of the regime to which they have been lawfully committed. Id. at 556, 94 S.Ct. at 2975. Consequently, prisoners retain only a narrow range of ... liberty interests protected by the due process clause. Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 467, 103 S.Ct. 864, 869, 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). 8 Those liberty interests of prisoners that are protected by the fourteenth amendment arise from two sources--the due process clause itself and the laws of the State. Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 466, 103 S.Ct. 864, 869, 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). For a protected interest to arise from the due process clause itself, there must be in the nature of the interest some qualities that are inherently deserving of protection. See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2601, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972). Due to the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights that results from lawful incarceration, Price v. Johnson, 334 U.S. 266, 285, 68 S.Ct. 1049, 1060, 92 L.Ed. 1356, protected interests that arise purely from the due process clause are restricted to the most basic liberty interests in prisoners. Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. at 467, 103 S.Ct. at 869. Thus, the Constitution itself does not guarantee either parole, Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7, 99 S.Ct. 2100, 2103, 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979), or good-time credit for satisfactory behavior, Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2975, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974), nor does it protect against either the transfer from one prison to another, Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 96 S.Ct. 2632, 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976), or administrative segregation within a particular prison, Hewitt v. Helms, supra. Once an individual has been released into society under the constraints of either parole or probation, however, the resulting freedom, although indeterminate, includes many of the core values of unqualified liberty and thus inherently falls within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. at 482, 92 S.Ct. at 2601 (parole); Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973) (probation); see also Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 493, 100 S.Ct. 1254, 1264, 63 L.Ed.2d 552 (1980) (involuntary confinement in mental hospital so qualitatively different from usual confinement for criminal conviction that its imposition must be according to strictures of due process clause). 9 In considering whether Ellard's parole by the state of Alabama into the custody of the State of Georgia created a constitutionally protected interest, the district court examined primarily the nature of the interest immediately created by the grant of parole. See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. at 483, 92 S.Ct. at 2601. Concluding that Ellard has not received any liberties because of the parole and [that] the possibility of future liberty is speculative, the court decided that Ellard's parole did not create a protected liberty interest. 10 If the nature of the liberty created by the parole were the only basis for determining that the interest deserves protection by the due process clause, we might be inclined to agree with the conclusion of the district court. As we have noted, however, a liberty interest may also arise from state laws. See, e.g., Hewitt v. Helms, supra; Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. at 488, 100 S.Ct. at 1261 (1980); Whitehorn v. Harrelson, 758 F.2d 1416, 1422 (11th Cir.1985). This occurs when a state places substantive limitations on official discretion. Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249, 103 S.Ct. 1741, 1747, 75 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983). Thus, for example, although the Constitution itself does not guarantee good-time credit for satisfactory behavior while in prison, once a state has created the right to good time and has established standards for its revocation, the prisoner's interest has real substance and falls within the protections of the fourteenth amendment. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 S.Ct. at 557, 94 S.Ct. at 2975. Similarly, although the mere possibility of parole provides simply a hope that is not protected by due process, a state might create by statute an expectancy of release [that] ... is entitled to some measure of constitutional protection. Greenholtz, 442 U.S. at 11, 12, 96 S.Ct. at 2105, 2106 (1979); see also Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. at 489, 100 S.Ct. at 1262 (liberty interest against transfer to mental hospital created by objective expectation, firmly fixed in state law and official penal complex practice). 11 As was correctly noted in the magistrate's report adopted by the district court, the Alabama parole statute frames the Parole Board's authority in discretionary terms, and thus does not create for Alabama prisoners a protected liberty interest in the expectation of parole. See Thomas v. Sellers, 691 F.2d 487 (11th Cir.1983). We are not here confronted, however, with a claim that a liberty interest in parole arises from the mandates of the statute itself. Rather, the issue is whether a liberty interest arose from state law as a result of the Parole Board's decision to exercise its discretionary authority to grant parole to Ellard. We must determine, then, whether having exercised this discretionary authority, the Parole Board was constrained by substantive limitations on its authority to rescind a parole decision. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. at 249, 103 S.Ct. at 1747. 12 In arguing that the Board's grant of parole to Ellard did not create a constitutionally protected liberty interest, the state claims that the parole granted to Ellard was simply a transfer to another state's prisons. The state concedes that Ellard technically received a parole, 2 but contends that the existence of a liberty interest should depend upon the substance of the action and not upon the words or form used to accomplish it. This argument, however, simply begs the question whether a liberty interest is created by state law. Contrary to the state's contentions, words and form do matter. Indeed, they are the essence of a substantive liberty interest created by state law. As the Supreme Court has made clear, where a claimed liberty interest does not arise from the due process clause itself, [t]he ground for any constitutional claim, if any, must be found in statutes or other rules defining the obligations of the authority charged with exercising the claimed liberty interest. Connecticut Bd. of Pardons v. Dumschat, 452 U.S. 458, 465, 101 S.Ct. 2460, 2465, 69 L.Ed.2d 158 (1981). The due process clause, in short, prohibits the states from negating by their actions rights that they have conferred by their words. 3 The states, of course, may elect not to confer rights, such as parole, that are not inherent in the Constitution. But once a state does choose to confer such a right, the prisoner's interest has real substance, and the right can be revoked only under the limitations imposed by the Due Process Clause. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. at 557, 94 S.Ct. at 2975; see Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. at 490-91, 100 S.Ct. at 1262-63. 13 Here, by the state's own concession, Ellard formally was granted parole under Alabama law. Despite the state's arguments to the contrary, Ellard's release into the custody of another state does not minimize the fact that, under Alabama law, this event placed substantive limits on the state's authority to return him to an Alabama prison. 4 Although the Alabama prison system retains legal custody over parolees, prisoners granted parole are entitled to go outside of prison walls and enclosures under conditions prescribed by the Parole Board. Ala.Code Sec. 15-22-26 (1975). The parole statute provides for the return of a parolee to prison only if the parolee violates the conditions of parole, Ala.Code Sec. 15-22-32, or if the parole is deemed void due to the failure of the parole board to follow the statutory requirements in granting parole, see Ala.Code Sec. 15-22-40. Nowhere does the statute expressly or impliedly provide the Parole Board the unlimited authority to revoke a parole that has been granted. 5 Indeed, the statute specifically states that the limitations and restrictions on the powers of the board or the members thereof shall be strictly construed. Ala.Code Sec. 15-22-38. See Ex parte Ellard, 474 So.2d at 766, (Embry, J., dissenting) (noting statutory restrictions on Parole Board's authority). In view of the statutory restrictions on the authority of the Parole Board to revoke a parole, we conclude that Ellard had a constitutionally protected liberty interest. 6 14 These statutory provisions notwithstanding, the state contends that the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the Board's actions under the rationale that the Board has the inherent authority to rescind its actions once it determines that it has made a mistake in carrying out its duties. Ex parte Ellard, 474 So.2d at 763. This interpretation of the Board's authority, the State contends, is a matter of state law that is binding on this court. Certainly, as the state suggests, the construction of a state's laws by its own courts may be of benefit in determining whether the laws create a constitutionally protected liberty interest. See Greenholtz, 442 U.S. at 12, 99 S.Ct. at 2106. 7 Here, however, the decision by the Alabama Supreme Court does not compel a decision that Ellard had no liberty interest in his parole. To the contrary, implicit in the Alabama Supreme Court's majority opinion are the assumptions that Ellard in fact was granted a parole and that this event created a liberty interest sufficient to trigger the procedural components of the due process clause. 15 The Alabama Supreme Court made clear that the legal issue was whether a parole board can revoke a parole. 474 So.2d at 762. This statement of the issue necessarily assumes that, under state law, a parole was granted. 8 Moreover, the court expressly stated that a parole could be revoked only if the prisoner is accorded his due process rights. Id. at 763. Again, this express limitation on the Board's ability to revoke parole necessarily assumes that a liberty interest was created by the grant of parole to Ellard. 9 16 The Alabama Supreme Court did not conclude that, under state law, the grant of parole to Ellard did not place substantive limitations on the authority of the Parole Board to rescind the decision. Rather, the court merely determined that, in spite of the substantive limitations on the Parole Board's authority to reconsider a grant of parole, the Board's revocation of Ellard's parole did not violate the due process clause. 10 This conclusion regarding the scope of the protection of the due process clause, however, concerns a matter of federal law of which the federal courts have the authority, and, indeed, the obligation, to make an independent determination. See, e.g., Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. at 490-91, 100 S.Ct. at 1262-63. 17