Opinion ID: 888074
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Inmates' Liberty Interest in Being Housed at MSP

Text: ¶ 31 In Wright v. Mahoney, 2003 MT 141, 316 Mont. 173, 71 P.3d 1195, we addressed whether an inmate possesses a state-created liberty interest in being housed solely at MSP. In Wright, we first cited federal case law: [G]iven a valid conviction, the criminal defendant has been constitutionally deprived of his liberty to the extent that the State may confine him and subject him to the rules of its prison system so long as the conditions of confinement do not otherwise violate the Constitution. The Constitution does not require that the State have more than one prison for convicted felons; nor does it guarantee that the convicted prisoner will be placed in any particular prison if, as is likely, the State has more than one correctional institution. . . . The conviction has sufficiently extinguished the defendant's liberty interest to empower the State to confine him in any of its prisons. Wright, ¶ 8 (citing Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224-25, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 2538, 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976)). We concluded that an inmate does not have a constitutional right to be imprisoned in any particular facility. Wright, ¶ 8. ¶ 32 Wright nevertheless argued that he had a state-created liberty interest in not being transferred from MSP. Wright based this argument on the wording of the Montana laws in effect at the time of his sentencing. Wright, ¶ 9. We explained that in order for a state to create a liberty interest, it must first enact a law that establishes a right of real substance, and that, even then, statutorily-defined liberty interests are restricted to freedom from atypical and significant hardships in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life or restraints which inevitably affect[ ] the duration of the prisoner's confinement. Wright, ¶ 9 (citing McDermott v. Montana Dept. of Corrections, 2001 MT 134, ¶ 11, 305 Mont. 462, ¶ 11, 29 P.3d 992, ¶ 11). ¶ 33 Wright argued that the 1995 statutory definition of state prison established a right of real substance to be housed solely at MSP. However, we held that even if this Court were to determine that the 1995 definition of state prison conferred a right of real substance, the right would be restricted to freedom from atypical and significant hardships in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life or restraints which inevitably affect[ ] the duration of the prisoner's confinement, and being transferred from one prison to another, even out of state, is neither an `atypical and significant' hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life, nor does it `inevitably affect the duration' of Wright's confinement. Wright, ¶ 10 (citing McDermott, ¶ 11). We concluded that Montana retains the discretion to transfer a prisoner for whatever reason or no reason at all; the laws in effect at the time of Wright's sentencing did not impose conditions on its discretionary power to transfer prisoners and finally, that Wright does not have a state-created liberty interest in not being transferred to or from any correctional facility. Wright, ¶ 11. ¶ 34 The District Court relied on the above-cited language from Wright in concluding that the Inmates do not have a state-created liberty interest in being housed solely at MSP. The Inmates contend this language from Wright is dicta as  Wright . . . only dealt with Wright's ex post facto argument and thus, the District Court erroneously reached its conclusion through its reliance on these dicta. We disagree. On appeal, Wright made three arguments: (1) the DOC lacked authority to transfer Wright outside of MSP based on the language of his written judgment and by virtue of having a liberty interest in not being transferred; (2) transferring Wright outside of MSP violated the prohibition against ex post facto legislation; and (3) transferring Wright outside of MSP violated equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We reached our holding in Wright by analyzing Wright's alleged state-created liberty interest in not being transferred from MSP. Because we determined none of Wright's substantial rights were implicated by being transferred, it was not necessary to determine whether a transfer violated the prohibition against ex post facto legislation. Wright, ¶ 12. Thus, the reasoning from Wright regarding an inmate's alleged state-created liberty interest in being housed at MSP is not dicta and is applicable to the case at bar. ¶ 35 The facts involving the judgments and sentences of the Inmates and Wright are substantially similar. Like the Inmates, Wright was sentenced to MSP prior to 1999, when the only available correctional facility was MSP. Also like the Inmates, Wright has been transferred to one or more of the regional and private prisons. As we determined that none of Wright's substantial rights are implicated by his being housed at a correctional facility other than the prison at Deer Lodge, Wright, ¶ 12, we likewise conclude here that none of the Inmates' substantial rights are implicated by being housed at the regional and private prisons. In other words, the Inmates do not possess a state-created liberty interest in being housed at MSP. ¶ 36 In 1999, the Montana Legislature enacted Chapter 491, Laws of Montana, 1999. The result was the amendment of § 53-30-101, MCA, to include the regional and private prisons as state prisons under Montana law. Prior to 1999, the only statutorily defined state prison was MSP. Chapter 491, Laws of Montana, 1999, § 24, also contained a savings clause which stated: [This act] does not affect rights and duties that matured, penalties that were incurred, or proceedings that were began before [the effective date of this act]. ¶ 37 The Inmates argue that the savings clause in Chapter 491, Laws of Montana, 1999, § 24, conferred a liberty interest in incarceration at MSP. Inmates moreover assert the amendment to § 53-30-101, MCA, in 1999 cannot affect their liberty interest in being housed solely at MSP because their sentences fall under the savings clause in that the sentences were penalties that were incurred before 1999. The DOC responds that at the time of the 1999 legislation, the Inmates did not have a right, per se, to imprisonment at MSP because MSP was the only imprisonment available. Thus, the DOC argues the Inmates have failed to demonstrate how the amendments to § 53-30-101, MCA, affected any penalties incurred by the Inmates' initial convictions to create a right of real substance. Furthermore, the DOC points out that the penalty provisions of Title 45, MCA (of which the majority of the Inmates have been sentenced pursuant to), have always provided for imprisonment in the state prison, not specifically imprisonment at MSP. ¶ 38 As we have already concluded the Inmates do not possess a state-created liberty interest in being housed solely at MSP, pursuant to our holding in Wright, we must in turn conclude that the savings clause of Chapter 491, Laws of Montana, 1999, does not provide the Inmates a right to be housed solely at MSP. We agree with the DOC that the savings clause does not confer on the Inmates a special right to be incarcerated at MSP when that right did not previously exist. ¶ 39 The District Court properly concluded that there are no genuine issues of material fact here and that the DOC was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ¶ 40 The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.