Court Opinion

ID: 9751770
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 17:01:22.840971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:58.872204
License: Public Domain

(Neighbors, J.,
dissenting).
The sole state interest in the good time scheme, as applied to defendant, is to induce good behavior. Not allowing good-time credit for pre-sentence incarceration, but doing so for prison confinement, is not even rationally related to the states’ end of good prisoner behavior. I hold that plaintiff’s being denied good time credit for his presentence incarceration violates equal protection under both the rational basis and strict scrutiny standards of review.

B. Disposition Of This Case

It is plaintiff’s burden to prove that he was unconstitutionally detained. See Godbold v. Wilson, 518 F.Supp. 1265 (D.Colo.1981). In order successfully to carry this burden, plaintiff must show that his pre-trial confinement was a result of his indigency. If he failed to post bond for want of inclination, defendants’ conduct was not wealth based discrimination and plaintiff’s equal protection claim will not lie.
Plaintiff concedes that “[t]he issue of plaintiff’s indigency is a fact which would have to be proven at trial.” Plaintiff’s reply brief No. 1, p. 2. Since plaintiff’s indigency is a question of material fact, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.
It is therefore ordered that
(1) Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied;
(2) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted;
(3) Plaintiff's claims for relief are dismissed without prejudice.