Court Opinion

ID: 9551962
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:02:43.046273+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:15.127414
License: Public Domain

Utter, C.J.
(concurring) — Petitioner's transfer is void for several reasons besides those given by the majority.
The state is authorized to transfer a prisoner to an out-of-state institution only when
the duly constituted judicial or administrative authorities [in this state] shall decide that confinement in, or transfer .. . to, an institution within the territory of another party state is necessary in order to provide adequate quarters and care or desirable in order to provide an appropriate program of rehabilitation or treatment. . .
RCW 72.70.010, art. 4(a). The provision requires, as a condition for an out-of-state transfer, that the prisoner needs *233facilities or programs not available in this state.6
In this case, petitioner was transferred because he was a "negative leadership influence on the population and a threat to the security of the institution." He was not transferred because the State lacked the ability to care for him. Therefore, since petitioner was transferred for reasons other than those provided in RCW 72.70.010, his transfer is void.
Petitioner's transfer is also void for another reason. He has a due process right, protected by the Fourteenth Amendment,7 to a hearing prior to any out-of-state transfer. Dicta in the majority would seem to indicate otherwise, but it fails to consider Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 63 L. Ed. 2d 552, 100 S. Ct. 1254 (1980), the most recent case applying the due process test to prisoner transfers.
In Vitek, the United States Supreme Court held that Nebraska prisoners have a due process right to a hearing before being transferred to mental hospitals within that state. While Vitek did not involve interstate transfers,8 it does set forth the standard by which to judge when due process mandates a pretransfer hearing. Vitek states that a hearing is constitutionally required when either (1) there is a state statute creating an expectation that there will be no transfers without cause, or (2) the transfer effects such a major change in the conditions of confinement as to constitute a "grievous loss". Vitek, at 488. Besides clarifying the due process analysis, Vitek has significance because it indi*234cates that Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 49 L. Ed. 2d 451, 96 S. Ct. 2532 (1976) and Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 49 L. Ed. 2d 466, 96 S. Ct. 2543 (1976), did not signal the demise of the "grievous loss" prong of the due process test, as thought by several lower federal courts, see, e.g., Sisbarro v. Warden, 592 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1979); Walker v. Hughes, 558 F.2d 1247 (6th Cir. 1977), and the majority.
The "grievous loss" test, announced by Vitek, focuses on the qualitative rather than the quantitative consequences of any transfer. Vitek, at 493. The focus is on the nature of the interest affected, not the degree of change. The cases relied upon by the majority did not employ this test. See, e.g., Sisbarro v. Warden, supra; Cofone v. Manson, 594 F.2d 934 (2d Cir. 1979).
The qualitative deprivations attending an out-of-state transfer include: separation from family and friends; inability to see in person the Board of Prison Terms and Paroles, which will determine the prisoner's release date; inability to have in-state counselors who know the parole board and can best present the prisoner's case and pursue generally the possibility of parole; loss of adequate access to local courts and counsel, and especially to Washington legal materials; loss of access to the state political system which remains in legal custody of the prisoner. See generally Ali v. Gibson, 483 F. Supp. 1102, 1121-24 (D.V.I. 1979); Millemann & Millemann, The Prisoner's Right to Stay Where He Is: State and Federal Transfer Compacts Run Afoul of Constitutional Due Process, 3 Cap. U.L. Rev. 223, 229-34 (1974). As stated in Hoitt v. Vitek, 361 F. Supp. 1238, 1251-52 (D.N.H.), affd sub nom. Laaman v. Vitek, 502 F.2d 1158 (1st Cir. 1973):
The evidence also shows that transfer radically transforms an inmate's life. Involuntary out-of-state transfer subjects an inmate to several severe deprivations. He is effectively cut off from his family and friends. His work, job training, and educational and rehabilitative programs are interrupted. Transfer seriously burdens an inmate's access to counsel and the courts and impairs his parole chances. Psychiatric and medical treatment may be tern-*235porarily curtailed. A transferee is generally branded a troublemaker and treated as such without being given an opportunity to defend himself and refute such a "reputation." Furthermore, the psychological effect of involuntary interstate transfer is damaging to the inmate and impede [s] any effort to rehabilitate him. In no case is there evidence that transfer enhanced an inmate's prospects of rehabilitation.
While a prisoner does not have a vested right to remain in the institution to which he was originally committed, this is not dispositive of the constitutional issue presented. The determination of whether due process requirements apply depends upon a determination of the nature of the interests being infringed, not upon a weighing of the competing interests of the parties. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 570-571, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). It is evident that involuntary interstate transfers have a punitive effect on the transferred inmates and involve an infringement of liberty and, to some extent, a loss of property.
Accord, Ali v. Gibson, supra; Croom v. Manson, 367 F. Supp. 586 (D. Conn. 1973). This analysis, while arguably inconsistent with Meachum and Montanye, comports with Vitek. It shows that an out-of-state confinement is "qualitatively different from the punishment characteristically suffered by a person convicted of a crime" in Washington. See Vitek, at 493. Consequently, transfers out of Washington do constitute the "grievous loss" envisioned by Vitek, and thus necessitate a pretransfer hearing.
Furthermore, even if interstate transfers do not impose a "grievous loss," RCW 72.70.010, art. 4(a) creates a liberty interest entitled to due process protection.9 Both Meachum *236and Vitek require due process hearings when the state creates either a right or justifiable expectation that the prisoner will not be transferred except for misbehavior or upon the occurrence of other specified events. See Vitek, at 488-89.
RCW 72.70.010, art. 4(a) provides that prisoners may be transferred out of state only when
confinement in, or transfer of an inmate to, an institution within the territory of another party state is necessary in order to provide adequate quarters and care or desirable in order to provide an appropriate program of rehabilitation or treatment. . .
This provision creates an expectation that prisoners will not be transferred out of state unless they need facilities or programs not available in Washington. Such an expectation is sufficient to invoke procedural protections. See Vitek v. Jones, supra; Meachum v. Fano, supra. Thus, on the basis of either RCW 72.70.010 or the "grievous loss" inflicted on petitioner by his interstate transfer, he was denied due process when transferred without a hearing.
To conclude that petitioner has no right to a hearing would also be a denial of equal protection. WAC 275-88 explicitly requires a hearing when a proposed transfer is based upon the prisoner's alleged misconduct. See WAC 275-88-050, -055, -100, and -105(2)(g). No one has suggested a rational basis for denying petitioner a pretransfer hearing while conferring one to a prisoner who has committed an infraction. Therefore, such disparate treatment violates equal protection. See Harmon v. McNutt, 91 Wn.2d 126, 587 P.2d 537 (1978). Consequently, for this reason as *237well as those already noted, petitioner's transfer is void.
Horowitz, J., concurs with Utter, C.J. Reconsideration denied April 23, 1981.

 The federal statute authorizing transfers from state to federal prisons has similarly been construed. Compare Lono v. Fenton, 581 F.2d 645 (7th Cir. 1978), with Sisbarro v. Warden, 592 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 849, 62 L. Ed. 2d 64, 100 S. Ct. 99 (1979).

 Several state courts have relied on their state constitutions to find the right to pretransfer hearings. See, e.g., People v. Ramirez, 25 Cal. 3d 260, 599 P.2d 622, 158 Cal. Rptr. 316 (1979); Watson v. Whyte,_W. Va. _, 245 S.E.2d 916 (1978).

 Interstate transfers also were not involved in Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 49 L. Ed. 2d 451, 96 S. Ct. 2532 (1976) and Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 49 L. Ed. 2d 466, 96 S. Ct. 2543 (1976), the cases relied upon by the majority.

Arguably, RCW 72.68.010 also creates a protected expectation. It reads: "Whenever in its judgment the best interests of the state or the welfare of any prisoner confined in any penal institution will be better served by his transfer to another institution the secretary may effect such transfer." But see Cofone v. Manson, supra at 938, holding that a similarly worded Connecticut statute provides no protected right.
WAC 275-88 likewise potentially creates a legally recognized expectation. It provides for hearings prior to any transfer based on the prisoner's misconduct. See WAC 275-88-050, -055, -100, and -105(2)(g). A prisoner could justifiably infer from those provisions that a hearing would be held prior to all transfers.