Legal Document

427 U.S. 236 96 Supreme Court Reporter 2543 49 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 466 Ernest L. MONTANYE, former Superintendent, Attica Correctional Facility, et al., Petitioners,v.Rodney R. HAYMES. Number 74-520. Argued April 21, 1976. Decided June 25, Syllabus The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Held not to require a hearing in connection with transfer state prisoner another institution State whether or such resulted from prisoner's misbehavior was disciplinary punitive, where under law had no right remain at any particular prison and justifiable expectation that he would be transferred unless found guilty misconduct, prisoners is conditional upon limited occurrence misconduct. Meachum versus Fano, 215, 2532, 451. Pp. 242-243. 505 Federal Reporter, 2nd 977, reversed remanded. Joel Lewittes, New York City, for petitioners. Alvin Judge Bronstein, Washington, D. C., respondent. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered opinion Court. 1 On 7, 1972, respondent Haymes removed his assignment as inmate clerk library Facility York. That afternoon observed circulating among other inmates document prepared by him time signed 82 prisoners. Among things, each signatory complained been deprived legal assistance result removal library.1 document, which addressed federal judge but sought relief, seized held authorities. 8, advised Clinton which, like Attica, maximum-security institution. effected next day. No loss good time, segregated confinement, privileges, measures accompanied transfer. August 3, filed petition District construed an application 42 Code KF62 § 1983 28 1343 seeking relief against petitioner Montanye, then Superintendent Attica. seizure retention despite requests its return, only violated Administrative Bulletin 20, allegedly made communication court privileged confidential, also infringed Haymes' federally guaranteed redress grievances. It further asserted prevent pursuing remedies reprisal having rendered various well having, along others, redress. 2 In response show-cause order issued court, Brady, correctional officer charge library, stated affidavit relieved "because continual disregard rules governing use library" one who being circulated ever official request assistance. Harold Smith, Deputy furnished Paragraph 21 Inmate's Rule Book,2 prohibited furnishing without permission copy bulletin board notice directing problems present them Officer Brady were circumstances set themselves up counselors receive pay their services.3 taken "in direct above rule forbidding except approval Superintendent" cautioned on several occasions about assisting required approval. 3 responded motion join defendant, granted, counteraffidavit denying there rulebook reasserting merely letter within scope claimed alleging petition, acts attempted furnish rather than hand out books them. 4 After retained counsel submitted memorandum behalf Haymes, dismissed action. giving consent reasonable violation Constitution. ruled did violate rights: "Although general allegation punishment motive transfer, facilities (Clinton) are harsher substantially different those afforded . Petitioner's consistent discretion given officials exercising proper custody inmates." App. 26a. 5 Appeals Second Circuit reversed. 977 (1974). Because considered affidavits outside pleadings, dismissal deemed have summary judgment Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 56. erroneous because two unresolved issues material fact: disobedience if so effects sufficiently burdensome Amendment. 6 court's theory should more punished harsh consequences suffer deprivations could imposed following specified procedures. Disciplinary transfers, thought, category "administrative" transfers. "When treatment meted reprimand, deter, reform individual, elementary fairness demands satisfactory opportunity establish deserving handling. (T)he specific facts decision punish predicated can most suitably ascertained impartial review evidence alleged misbehavior, assess effect will inmate's future incarceration." F.2d, 980. it difficult "to look mere coincidence," id., 979; convinced might able demonstrate attending trigger protections Clause, even though both prisons.4 case therefore remanded proceedings We granted certiorari, 422 1055, 95 2676, 707 (1975), heard reverse Appeals. 7 hold, every disadvantageous must appropriate hearings. although perhaps very similar prisoner, exempt ruling. Only transfers substantial adverse impact call procedural formalities. Even so, our requires reversal this case. liberty interest duly convicted when State, hearing, absent some rooted events. disagree Appeals' proposition own force hearings whenever authorities breach rules, least may said involve consequences. As long conditions degree confinement subjected sentence otherwise violative Constitution, does itself subject judicial oversight. they labeled punitive. 8 agree facility Under law, adult persons sentenced imprisonment institutions, committed Commissioner Corrections. He receives adult, male felons reception center initial evaluation institutions. N.Y.Correc.Law 71(1) (McKinney Supp.1975-1976); N.Y.C.R.R. 103.10. Thereafter, empowered statute "transfer another." 23(1) Supp.1975-1976). reasoned applicable statutes regulations, punishments reserved sanctions hearings, neither misconduct due process But imposes discretionary power we requirements promulgated. Transfers after hearing. 253.5. Whatever part behavior play basis invoking Massachusetts 9 reversed, opinion. 10 So ordered. 11 STEVENS, whom BRENNAN MARSHALL join, dissenting. 12 Respondent's complaint, fairly read, alleges quite theories recovery: First, entitled before liberty; second, form communicating rendering inmates. 13 Since has difference between facilities, & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions cause grievous entitling my conclusion unaffected motivation think seriousness residuum protected determines deprivation occurred. 14 am persuaded, however, allegations complaint sufficient trial claim retribution exercise rights. claim, reason defendants' action critical procedure followed almost irrelevant. do understand analysis, assume Appeals, consistently Court's mandate, conduct trial.* 15 dissent same follow simple affirmance. Thus, explained why believes Opinion "reversed," Judgment correct. affirm judgment. read verbatim: "Hon. John T. Curtin: "I writing complain now Rodney Washington library. "Since cannot longer obtain either nature obtaining corresponding issue contained case, preparing post-conviction courts. "The major problem attitude displayed goes way circumvent feel obviously whereby access myself legally assisting. "Wherefore, constitutional rights adequate courts herein forth. "(Signed inmates.)" Inmates forbidden, warden, assist preparation papers. follows: "Office "April 1972 "To all concerned: "In instances desire Law Library, Correction extent necessary assign Library staff cases. "Under 'legal counselors' services. "Ernest Montanye "Superintendent" "that hardship involved fact dislocation render Haymes's establishes punitive denial process." 981. said: provide illustration real shuttled another. sent Clinton, himself hundred miles away home family Buffalo, Not effectively separated contact world prison, friends forced adjust new environment regarded troublemaker. Contacts necessarily difficult. A transferee suffers well: frequently put administrative segregation arrival facility, Part 260; personal belongings often lost; medications psychiatric medical treatment, See Hoitt Vitek, 361 F.Supp. 1238, 1249 (D.N.H.1973); educational rehabilitative programs interrupted. Moreover, reasons therefor, record reviewed parole board, difficulty rebutting, fact, inference drawn therefrom." Id., 981-982. * Respondent First purpose suppressing attempt courts, forbade unconstitutional. disputed actually broken advice improper dismiss grant defendants facts. Haines Kerner, 404 519, 92 594, 30 652; Conley Gibson, 355 41, 78 99, 80.

Classification Label: 3