Court Opinion

ID: 9596954
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:54:31.460844+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:41.170887
License: Public Domain

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment only:
Six months ago, the original panel in this case filed a majority opinion holding that Washington state law creates a liberty interest in an inmate’s early release into community custody. We held that the prisoner’s liberty interest is protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that, accordingly, when an inmate becomes eligible for a transfer to community custody, the prison authorities may deny his request for a transfer only for one of the reasons specified in the Washington statute — and only if he is afforded a minimal opportunity to present his side of the story before they do so. In short, we held that Washington prison authorities must follow Washington law and abide by the United States Constitution. Joining me in that opinion was Judge Warren J. Ferguson, who died before we could deny the petition for rehearing; dissenting was Judge Milan Smith. As a result of Judge Ferguson’s death, it was necessary to replace him on this case with another member of this court drawn at random. There were no intervening decisions that changed the law between the time Judge Ferguson and I issued our opinion holding that a liberty interest exists that protects the prisoners’ rights at issue and the time that Judge Smith, joined by our colleague who replaced Judge Ferguson, issued a substitute opinion holding that no such liberty interest exists.
As stated above, it is indisputable that the law did not change and the Constitution did not change between the time of the original panel’s decision and the time of the new majority’s opinion. All that changed is the composition of the three-judge panel. To those who question whether the results in constitutional and other cases depend on the membership of the panel, or whether the replacement of even a single Supreme Court justice can change the fundamental nature of the rights of all Americans with respect to matters as basic as affirmative action, a woman’s right of choice, and the nature of religious liberty, the result in the case currently before our panel is merely a minor illustration of how the judicial system currently operates. Solely because of fortuity, I am compelled to write in strong disagreement with the majority’s constitutional analysis instead of simply reaffirming an opinion vindicating the constitutional rights of the petitioner and his fellow prisoners in the state of Washington.1
In the case before us, it is not necessary for the new majority to undo the original majority’s constitutional ruling, even if it disagrees with it. The constitutional question is a close one, and substantial arguments can be made for either position. Under these circumstances, the more important consideration, in my view, is maintaining the stability and legitimacy of the court’s decisions. We have a procedure for correcting decisions that a majority of *881the court believes warrant reconsideration. That process is known as a en banc rehearing. It can be invoked if any single judge on the court, including either member of the majority, elects to make a call. Relying on this process would, in my view, be in the better interests of the court and the judicial system; increasing the extent to which judicial decisions depend on chance and subjectivity is not a wise alternative.
Let me make it clear that I have not suggested, nor do I believe, that Judge Smith and Judge Tallman do not have the authority to withdraw the opinion filed by the initial panel and published as the opinion of the court. Of course, they do.2 Nor have I suggested that the opinion was “final”: I merely stated what I strongly believe — that it is unwise for a court, once it has published an opinion on a constitutional question, to change its mind for so fortuitous and subjective a reason. Rather, I suggested that a procedure exists under which we could reach a different result through a more objective process in which the merits, not the composition of the panel, would provide the basis for our action. Proceeding in the latter manner would help to secure the legitimacy of court decisions and, necessarily, to maintain public confidence in the judicial system.
I. Liberty Interest
As Judge Ferguson and I previously held, Washington’s statutory scheme creates a protected liberty interest because it requires the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) to transfer an inmate to community custody in lieu of earned release “unless any one of the ... specifically designated reasons are found[,]” thereby “creating] a presumption that ... release [into community custody] will be granted, and ... in turn creating] a legitimate expectation of release absent the requisite finding that one of the justifications for [denial] exists.” Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 11-12, 99 S.Ct. 2100, 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979). See also Bd. of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369, 377-78, 107 S.Ct. 2415, 96 L.Ed.2d 303 (1987). The majority rejects this argument, finding no “ ‘explicitly mandatory language’ ... creating a substantive right to transfer to community custody” under Washington law. Maj. Op. at 2502 (emphasis omitted). For the reasons set forth in our prior majority opinion and reiterated below, I *882believe that the current majority’s reading is flawed.
The Washington statutory scheme uses language that effectively mandates the transfer to community custody of those inmates who have earned release time and who have not been found to meet one of the statutory reasons for denial of a release plan set forth in Washington Revised Code § 9.94A.728(2)(d). Section 9.94A.710(1) requires that sex offenders be sentenced to a term of community custody to begin either when the offender’s term of confinement is complete or when he is transferred as a result of earned release time. Section 9.94A.728(1) likewise requires the DOC to develop and promulgate procedures by which a sex offender may become eligible for transfer to community custody in lieu of earned release time. The same section then sets forth the limited circumstances under which the Department “may deny” an inmate’s proposed plan for transfer to community custody. Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.728(2)(d) (listing as legitimate reasons for denial, a DOC determination that the release plan may violate the conditions of the sentence or conditions of supervision, place the offender at risk to violate the conditions of the sentence, place the offender at risk to reoffend, or present a risk to victim or community safety). By placing substantive limitations on DOC’s discretion to deny release plans and, in particular, by requiring that denial of such plans be based on the limited criteria contained in section 9.94A.728(2)(d), Washington has created a liberty interest in early release into community custody that is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.3 See Allen, 482 U.S. at 875-76, 107 S.Ct. 2415 (clarifying that a state may grant “significant discretion to the decisionmaker” to apply “general or broad release criteria” without “de-priv[ing] the prisoner of the liberty interest in parolef,]” so long as “release is required after the [decisionmaker] determines (in its broad discretion) that the necessary prerequisites exist”). See also Baumann, 754 F.2d at 844 (noting that “[a] state may create a constitutionally *883protected liberty interest by establishing regulatory measures that impose substantive limitations on the exercise of official discretion”); Bergen v. Spaulding, 881 F.2d 719, 721 (9th Cir.1989) (“A board charged with deciding a prisoner’s early release may be delegated significant discretion in making its decision, and yet be constrained by legal standards in exercising that discretion .... that scheme may give rise to a liberty interest in early release.”) (internal citation omitted).
That the Washington statute governing transfer to community custody does not use the more traditional mandatory language formula used in other early release statutes, i.e. stating that the DOC “shall” grant release “unless” certain findings are made, does not require a contrary result. See Allen, 482 U.S. at 378, 107 S.Ct. 2415 (rejecting the argument that a statute must contain the “shall/unless” formula in order to create a liberty interest). Although we have accorded significance to the use of the term “shall” in assessing whether early release statutes create a liberty interest, we have never held that use of this term is required in order to satisfy the mandatory language rule set forth in Greenholtz and Allen. Nor does the majority so hold today. Maj. Op. at 875-76. Despite the absence of the word “shall,” I conclude, as the prior majority did, that the language of section 9.94A.728(2)(d) is mandatory. Section 9.94A.728(2)(d) provides that the department “may deny transfer to community custody ... if” any one of four criteria is met. By establishing criteria under which release may be denied, section 9.94A.728(2)(d) creates the presumption that, absent the existence of one those criteria, release will be granted. The repetition of the criteria, albeit in more specific form, in section 72.09.340(3)(a) and in Policy Directive 350.200 confirms this understanding of the mandatory nature of the statute.
The “may deny ... if ’ formula operates in precisely the same manner and has precisely the same effect as a “shall grant ... unless” clause. Under the “may deny ... if ’ formula, the provision sets forth the conditions under which the agency may deny release. Otherwise, it must grant it. This is distinguishable from state statutes that provide that a decision-maker “may grant ... if ’ certain criteria are met. Under the “may grant ... if’ formula, the agency may only grant release if the relevant criteria are met, but it is not required to do so.4 Therefore, under the “may deny ... if ’ formula, as under a “shall grant ... unless” clause, there is an expectation that release will be granted unless one of the specified conditions exists.
Judge Smith, who separately concurred in the original majority opinion, remains unconvinced that the language of the statutory scheme is mandatory. My colleague who replaced Judge Ferguson agrees with *884him. But my reading is supported by that of the Washington state courts. In interpreting the statutory scheme governing early release into community custody, the state Court of Appeals has on two occasions discussed the mandatory nature of the law. First, in In re Dutcher, an inmate similarly situated to Carver challenged the DOC’s failure to review his plan for release into community custody pursuant to the Department’s policy of categorically denying the plans of those offenders who appeared to be sexually violent predators and who were referred for civil commitment. 114 Wash.App. 755, 60 P.3d 635, 635-36 (2002). The court held that the DOC’s policy violated the statutory mandate, explaining that “the statute compels DOC to require offenders to develop a release plan, and requires DOC to base its community custody eligibility decisions on the merits of the release plan.” Id. at 638 (emphasis added).
Second, my conclusion that requiring a decision on the merits of a release plan permits the Department to deny such a plan only if it finds one of the statutory criteria listed in section 9.94A.728(2)(d) is bolstered by the state court’s interpretation of the statute in In re Liptrap. In Liptrap, inmates challenged the DOC’s policy of refusing to review release plans of sex offenders until a forensic psychological evaluation had been completed. 127 Wash.App. 463, 111 P.3d 1227, 1229 (2005). In finding that the Department’s policy violated inmates’ due process rights, the court explained that “[t]he provisions in subsections [9.94A.728(2)] (c) and (d), spell[ ] out what is required in a release plan and stat[e] reasons why the department may deny a release[.]” Id. at 1232 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Lip-trap court found that “the department [does not have] unlimited discretion to decide whether and when to consider an offender for transfer to community custody.” Id. Rather, the DOC’s failure to “state[ ] a legitimate reason ” for the denial of a release plan, the court concluded, “deprived [the inmates] of earned early release credits in violation of due process.” Id. at 1234 (emphasis added).5 This holding is consistent with my conclusion that Washington law requires that the DOC’s denial of a release plan be based on a “legitimate reason,” and that such reasons are enumerated in section 9.94A.728(2)(d).6
I conclude, then, as did the original panel majority, that the language of the Washington statutory scheme, as supported by *885Washington case law, mandates the transfer to community custody of those inmates who have earned release time and who have not been found to meet one of the statutory reasons for denial of a release, thereby creating a constitutionally-protected liberty interest in the transfer. This conclusion is further supported by Washington state court decisions finding a limited liberty interest in transfer to community custody in lieu of early release. The Washington Court of Appeals has consistently found a “limited liberty interest in early release into a community custody program.... ” In re Crowder, 97 Wash.App. 598, 985 P.2d 944, 944-45 (1999) (holding inmate had liberty interest in grant or denial of community custody placement upon earning of early release, but that the minimum level of due process required to protect this interest was provided). See also In re Dutcher, 60 P.3d at 636 (“An inmate’s interest in his earned early release credits is a limited, but protected, liberty interest.”); In re Liptrap, 111 P.3d at 1231(same).7
In sum, I would hold once again that the Washington statutory scheme governing transfer to community custody of those inmates who have earned early release time creates a liberty interest that is protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having found this liberty interest, I would, like the original panel, go a step beyond the current majority and consider “whether the procedures attendant upon th[e] deprivation [of Carver’s liberty interest] were constitutionally sufficient[.]” Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460, 109 S.Ct. 1904, 104 L.Ed.2d 506 (1989). Carver’s release plan was denied under a categorical policy that provided him with no process at all; it simply rejected all plans of offenders who, like Carver, appeared to fall under the definition of a sexually violent predator and who were referred for civil commitment. Accordingly, the complete absence of procedures deprived Carver of his liberty interest in transfer to community custody without due process of law.
*886Finally, I would note that the majority’s analysis of whether Carver presents a danger to the community is entirely beside the point. That is not a question for this court. Whether the prison officials followed the law is. Equally important, the fact that the statute creates a liberty interest does not mean that it does not also serve the purpose of protecting the community. The majority states that the purpose of the statute is to provide “discretion for DOC officials precisely so they may deny release plans of prisoners like Carver who remain threats to the community.” Maj. Op. at 876. But in establishing a liberty interest, the Washington statute did not ignore legitimate concerns about the safety of the community. Indeed, among the four permissible reasons for denying transfer into community custody are whether such transfer would “place the offender at risk to reoffend, or present a risk to victim safety or community safety.” Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.728(2)(d). This threat to the community, however, must be established through a proper procedure in order to justify the deprivation of the inmate’s liberty interest; it is not simply left to the unbridled discretion of the DOC. The point, then, is that inmates have a constitutionally-protected liberty interest in release to community custody such that when the DOC denies release, it must do so for one of the statutorily-enumerated reasons, and it must do so pursuant to proper procedures. Here, neither requirement was met. The prison officials simply ignored the statutory requirements and categorically denied all prisoners like Carver the release to which they may have been entitled. Thus, Carver and others were denied their due process rights. Let me make it absolutely clear, I do not contend that Carver was entitled to release. He may well not have been. On this record, however, we cannot know. Had the DOC followed the procedures provided by statute, and had it found that Carver’s release “pre-sent[ed] a risk to community safety,” the prison authorities could well have retained him in custody. Following the law is not that difficult, and we are entitled to expect no less from our officials, prison or otherwise.
II. Qualified Immunity
Although unlike the current majority I conclude that Carver was deprived of a liberty interest, I would as did the original majority affirm the district court’s finding of qualified immunity and therefore concur in the current majority’s judgment.
Qualified immunity protects “government officials ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). The qualified immunity analysis proceeds in two parts. First, we consider whether “the facts alleged show that [Lehman’s] conduct violated a constitutional right[J” Galen, 477 F.3d at 658-59 (citing Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 200-02, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001)). For the reasons discussed above, I would answer this question in the affirmative. Second, we ask if “the right [Lehman is] alleged to have violated [was] clearly established such that a reasonable [official] would have understood that he was violating that right[J” Id. I conclude that the answer to this question is no.
In determining whether the right alleged to have been violated was clearly established, we must consider the right “in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition[.]” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151. “ ‘The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates *887that right.’ ” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987)). Here, because section 9.94A.728(2)(d) does not use the more common mandatory term “shall,” a reasonable correctional official might not have understood that the Washington statutory scheme created a liberty interest in early release into community custody. Certainly, the question was highly debatable at the time that Lehman was required to act. Carver’s plan was denied before the Washington Court of Appeals had issued its decisions in Dutcher and Liptrap, which clarified that not only does a limited liberty interest exist under state law, but that the DOC’s discretion to deny release into community custody is limited to rejection of a plan on the basis of the legitimate statutory criteria set forth in section 9.94A.728(2)(d).
Because I conclude, as did the original majority, that the right at issue here was not sufficiently clear at the time of the facts giving rise to this case such that a reasonable official would understand that denying a release plan without providing a legitimate statutory reason for that denial would violate due process, I would once again affirm the district court’s grant of qualified immunity.
III. Conclusion
Washington state law creates a liberty interest in an inmate’s early release into community custody that is protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Carver was denied his due process right by the state officials’ refusal to approve his release plan without reviewing it on its merits. At the time, however, the due process right arising from the existence of his liberty interest was not sufficiently clearly established to meet the Saucier standard. Because I would affirm the district court’s determination that Lehman is entitled to qualified immunity, I therefore concur in the majority' s judgment, but I respectfully disagree with its reasoning.

. All would agree that an opinion may be properly withdrawn or amended when the panel is persuaded by a party or a colleague, or becomes aware on its own, of a "point of law or fact that ... the court has overlooked or misapprehended....” Fed. R.App. P. 40. I must note, however, that this practice of withdrawing published opinions is employed far more sparingly than Judge Smith suggests. Of the ten cases which he cites as "published opinions [that] were withdrawn,” Maj. Op. at 879, only five other than the one before us fit that description. In two of those five, the panel remanded to an administrative agency in its revised decisions but ordered similar or broader relief than in the initial opinions. See Al-Mousa v. Mukasey, 294 Fed.Appx. 277, 279-80 (9th Cir.2008); Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir.2008). In a third, the panel dismissed a petition rather than remanding to an administrative agency after the government submitted the full record in place of the incomplete record it initially provided to the panel. Granados-Oseguera v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir.2008). In a fourth case, the panel changed its reason for allowing the government to pursue a restitution order, preferring to rely on federal pre-emption. United States v. Gianelli, 543 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir.2008). In only one case did the panel reverse a basic position it had taken. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., 534 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir.2008). In none of these cases was a constitutional question at issue, and in none was the withdrawal prompted by a matter unrelated to the law, such as the reconstitution of the panel.

. At oral argument, Lehman urged that the presence of more specific criteria for denial of proposed residence locations in section 72.09.340(3)(a) undermines Carver’s contention that the four criteria listed in section 9.94A.728(2)(d) provide the exclusive legitimate bases for denial of a release plan. Lehman is incorrect: the bases for denial of proposed residence locations contained in section 72.09.340(3)(a) are, in effect, specific variations of the same more general formulations set forth for denial of release plans in section 9.94A.728(2)(d). Section 72.09.340(3)(a) provides:
[T]he department shall not approve a residence location if the proposed residence: (i) Includes a minor victim or child of similar age or circumstance (as a previous victim who the department determines may be put at substantial risk of harm by the offender's residence in the household); or (ii) is within close proximity of the current residence of a minor victim, unless the where— abouts of the minor victim cannot be determined or unless such a restriction would impede family reunification efforts ordered by the court or directed by the department of social and health services. The department is further authorized to reject a residence location if the proposed residence is within close proximity to schools, child care centers, playgrounds, or other grounds or facilities where children of similar age or circumstance as a previous victim are present who the department determines may be put at substantial risk of harm by the sex offender's residence at that location.
These bases for denial of a proposed residence, which take into account whether the residence includes or is near a past or potential victim, are simply more specific examples of the final two criteria that serve as legitimate bases for denial under § 9.94A.728(2)(d), whether the “proposed residence location and living arrangements ... place the offender at risk to reoffend, or present a risk to victim safety or community safety.” Wash. Rev. Code § 72.09.340(3)(a).

. For this reason, courts have routinely held that the "may grant ... if” formulation does not create a liberty interest. See, e.g., Barna v. Travis, 239 F.3d 169, 171 (2d Cir.2001) (New York parole statute); Dace v. Mickelson, 797 F.2d 574, 577 (8th Cir.1986) (South Dakota parole statute); Gale v. Moore, 763 F.2d 341, 343 (8th Cir.1985) (Missouri parole statute); Parker v. Corrothers, 750 F.2d 653, 656-657 (8th Cir.1984) (Arkansas parole statute); Dock v. Latimer, 729 F.2d 1287, 1288 (10th Cir.1984) (Utah parole statute); Irving v. Thigpen, 732 F.2d 1215, 1217 (5th Cir.1984) (Mississippi parole statute); Candelaria v. Griffin, 641 F.2d 868, 869-70 (10th Cir.1981) (New Mexico parole statute); Williams v. Briscoe, 641 F.2d 274, 276-77 (5th Cir.1981) (Texas parole statute); Schuemann v. Colo. State Bd. of Adult Parole, 624 F.2d 172, 174 n. 2 (10th Cir.1980); Boothe v. Hammock, 605 F.2d 661, 664 (2d Cir.1979) (New York parole statute); Shirley v. Chestnut, 603 F.2d 805, 806-07 (10th Cir.1979) (Oklahoma parole statute); Wagner v. Gilligan, 609 F.2d 866, 867 (6th Cir.1979) (Ohio parole statute).

. The Liptrap court specifically noted section 72.09.340’s provision for denial of a release plan because the proposed residence is near young children as a "legitimate statutory reason for disapproving a release plan for a sex offender.” In re Liptrap, 111 P.3d at 1233 & n. 6 (citing Wash. Rev. Code § 72.09.340(3)). For the reasons set forth in footnote 3, supra, this provision is simply a specific example of the more general bases for denial set forth in section 9.94A.728(2)(d).

. This provision goes on to state that "[t]he department’s authority under this section is independent of any court-ordered condition of sentence or statutory provision regarding conditions for community custody or community placement.” Wash Rev. Code § 9.94A.728(2)(d). The majority argues that this sentence makes it clear that the function of section 9.94A.728(2)(d) is "to preserve to the DOC the discretion to deny transfer in the event that it makes one of the four determinations, notwithstanding what other legal sources might otherwise require.” Maj. Op. at 876. I do not disagree. The fact that the provision permits the DOC to deny release even where other legal sources would allow for it is irrelevant, however, to the question at hand: regardless of other legal sources, does the statute itself place substantive limits on the DOC’s exercise of discretion? As I explained supra, the provision’s preservation to the DOC of discretion to deny transfer only "in the event that it makes one of the four determinations!,]” is precisely the type of substantive limitation that gives rise to the liberty interest asserted here.

. The majority contends that I read too much into the use of the word "liberty interest" in these cases. It first argues that the liberty interest recognized by the Washington Court of Appeals is merely procedural, rather than substantive, in nature. Maj. Op. at 877 (“[T]hose cases concerned only the procedural right to compliance with individualized consideration on the merits of prisoners’ release plans....”). To the contrary, the Washington court explained: "An inmate's interest in his earned early release credits is a limited, but protected, liberty interest. Likewise, the department's compliance with requirements of statutes affecting his release is a protected liberty interest.” See In re Liptrap, 111 P.3d at 1231 (quoting In re Dutcher, 60 P.3d at 636) (emphasis added). As this language makes clear, the Washington court recognizes a liberty interest in both the substantive right to earned early release (here, in the form of transfer to community custody) and the distinct procedural right to have the DOC comply with the requirements of the statutes governing such release.
The majority next suggests that "To the extent [the Washington decisions] contain dicta using the same term, liberty interest,’ to refer to both a substantive right to transfer and a procedural right to consideration on the merits, the most logical reading is that both derive from Washington law, and are hence of the same sub-constitutional nature.” Maj. Op. at 877. That the Washington court had the federal Due Process Clause — and not a sub-constitutional right — in mind when analyzing section 9.94A.728(2) is, again, evidenced by the plain language of its decision in Liptrap, where the court framed its discussion of the interest at stake in the familiar terms of federal due process jurisprudence. See In re Liptrap, 111 P.3d at 1231 (explaining that "[d]ue process protects against the deprivation of life, liberty, or property” and finding that "[a]n inmate’s interest in his earned early release credits is a limited, but protected, liberty interest”).