Court Opinion

ID: 9497086
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:42:58.991837+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:59.682348
License: Public Domain

ROGERS, Circuit Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
While I agree with much of the majority’s careful opinion, there are two areas where my analysis differs sufficiently to warrant a separate opinion, and one point upon which I respectfully dissent.
*361A.
I agree that the Inmates have shown a protected liberty interest under Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995), and that in applying Sandin we are not required to make an interstate, as opposed to intrastate, comparison. The record shows that inmates assigned to OSP not only are subjected to far more severe conditions of confinement, but they are also disqualified for parole while assigned to OSP. These two factors together permit the conclusion that a liberty interest is implicated under Sandin.
Because assignment to the OSP involves disqualification from parole, it is unnecessary for us to decide whether a prison classification that subjects an inmate to more restrictive conditions of confinement, without more, constitutes a deprivation of a liberty interest. Recent unpublished opinions of the Seventh Circuit hold that it does not, even where assignment to a su-permax prison was involved. See Moore v. Litscher, 52 Fed.Appx. 861 (7th Cir.2002) (prisoners do not have a federally protected liberty interest in being housed in a particular facility, and therefore, as a matter of federal constitutional law, prisoner was not entitled to any due process protection before he was moved to supermax facility); Nash v. Litscher, 50 Fed.Appx. 317 (7th Cir.2002) (same). If movement from one level of restrictive confinement to a significantly higher one triggers due process protections, then prison administration could be unduly burdened by the necessity of due process hearings. Courts would then have to struggle with just how much of a change in the severity of confinement triggers due process protection. Fortunately, we do not need to decide the issue. In this case, the decision to assign an inmate to OSP not only imposes extraordinarily strict conditions, but also suspends parole eligibility. While Ohio law does not create a liberty interest in parole, see Ohio Rev.Code § 2967.03; Wagner v. Gilligan, 609 F.2d 866, 867 (6th Cir.1979), a parole eligibility determination can indirectly affect the length of a prisoner’s incarceration, and is patently based on factors beyond the consideration of prisoner safety and prison management. See Ohio Admin. Code § 5120:1-1-07 (2004); Layne v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 97 Ohio St.3d 456, 780 N.E.2d 548, 555 (2002) (emphasizing that parole board may “consider any circumstances relating to the offense or offenses of conviction, including crimes that did not result in conviction, as well as any other factors [it] deems relevant”).
Even though assignment to a very restrictive prison might not by itself amount to a deprivation of a liberty interest, and even though a suspension of parole eligibility by itself may not amount to the deprivation of a property or liberty interest in Ohio, the combination of the two deprivations, in the context of the facts shown in the record of this case, amounts to a deprivation of a protected interest for procedural due process purposes. See Sandin, 515 U.S. at 487, 115 S.Ct. 2293 (finding no protected liberty interest in remaining free from disciplinary segregation, but noting that disciplinary record did not preclude parole); Neal v. Skimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 830 (9th Cir.1997) (finding that stigmatizing consequences of labeling inmate as “sex offender,” combined with parole ineligibility for non-completion of mandatory treatment program, triggered due process protections under Sandin). By way of analogy, the Supreme Court found a protected interest in Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622, 633 n. 13, 100 S.Ct. 1398, 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980), from the combination of a loss of at-will employment (alone not a property interest under Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972)) and defamatory statements (alone not a deprivation of a *362liberty interest under Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976)).
B.
I also agree that the proper framework for evaluating whether the state procedures meet the requirements of procedural due process is the balancing test set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-45, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). Such an analysis requires that each procedural protection sought for each category of administrative decisionmaking be evaluated independently under the Eldridge factors. We are not required to adopt for any prison-related decision the bundle of procedures required by one or another Supreme Court case dealing with different types of prison decisions. Thus discussion of the HewittfWoljf “dichotomy” is problematic. Many deprivations of liberty interests in prison, and certainly the ones in this case, are different in important respects both from the disciplinary rescission of good-time credits in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974), and from the administrative segregation in Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 103 S.Ct. 864, 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). The sought procedures may also vary. In short, the balance has to be context-specific. Thus whether or not a particular procedure imposed by the district court “tracks Wolff ” by itself does not tell us whether it is required by El-dridge. On the other hand, of course, the Supreme Court’s analysis with respect to what procedures are required to protect a particular liberty interest do provide guidance where the procedures or the interests are in relevant respects analogous. Thus to the extent, for instance, that Hewitt instructs that additional procedures with respect to “forward-looking” determinations are less likely to increase the accuracy of such decisions (the second Eldridge factor), 459 U.S. at 473-74, 103 S.Ct. 864, that guidance may appropriately be applied — not categorically but as part of the weighing — in other cases involving different procedures and different liberty interests.
I would also qualify the majority’s statement that “[i]t is not the nature of the decision which strikes the due process balance; it is the nature of the interests on both sides of that balance.” The Eldridge balance involves three factors, two of which can be characterized as “the nature of the interests on both sides.” The other, often dispositive factor, however, is the degree to which the desired procedures will increase the accuracy of agency deci-sionmaking. That determination often does depend on “the nature of the decision” in the sense that some types of decisions will be greatly benefited by certain procedures, while others may not.
C.
Applying the Eldridge analysis, I would uphold all of the procedural requirements imposed by the district court except the requirement that officials limit their placement decision to those matters detailed in the notice to the inmate.1
At the outset, I note that our scope of review is de novo for legal issues such as whether procedural due process requires certain procedures, even though the issue is presented on appeal from the entry of an injunction. See Chao v. Hosp. Staffing Servs., Inc., 270 F.3d 374, 381 (6th Cir. 2001) (“A court abuses its discretion when *363it relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact, applies an inappropriate legal standard, or improperly applies the law, with such legal questions receiving de novo review in the Court of Appeals.”), South Cent. Power Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 186 F.3d 733, 737 (6th Cir.1999) (“A district court’s decision to grant or deny a permanent injunction is reviewed under several distinct standards. Factual findings are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard, legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, and the scope of injunc-tive relief is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”). The scope of equitable relief may be discretionary in some sense, such that review of injunctive orders may sometimes be for abuse of discretion, but precisely speaking a district court does not have discretion to determine whether due process requires a hearing in a particular context. We properly review such a legal issue de novo.
The comprehensive notice requirement imposed by the district court essentially provides inmates with notice of all of the evidence that may be relied on in determining his placement. Significantly, this requirement provides inmates appearing before classification committees with more notice than that received by criminal defendants at trial, where the liberty interests at stake are obviously more substantial. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 16; Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559, 97 S.Ct. 837, 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977) (“There is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case ... [and] the Due Process Clause has little to say regarding the amount of discovery which the parties must be afforded ... ”). As the Supreme Court has recognized, “[pjrison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply.” Wolff, 418 U.S. at 556, 94 S.Ct. 2963. In my view, the comprehensive notice requirement extends beyond what due process requires.
In upholding the district court’s requirement, the majority relies on Sandin to conclude that the liberty interest in this case is particularly weighty. If anything, however, the opposite inference is warranted. That is, under Sandin, a liberty interest arises from “atypical and significant hardships” not implicit in the original sentence. Typical or less significant hardships thus do not even rise to the level of a protected liberty interest. It is only the atypicality or the extraordinary significance of the hardship that is even enough to raise due process concerns. It follows that a hardship that is only marginally atypical and marginally significant should only be given marginal weight in an El-dridge analysis. It is illogical to say that any interest that meets the Sandin test must be of a weight requiring greater due process protection. On the contrary, a prisoner gains due process protection under Sandin only when the hardship exceeds typical hardship. Because in a sense it is the excess over typical hardship that warrants due process protection, it is logical that it be that excess that is weighed as the private interest in the El-dridge analysis. Since that excess may be very small, the fact that the interest was determined under Sandin may instead imply that the private interest be given a lesser weight than in the case of another type of protected property or liberty interest. In any event, the fact that the liberty interest is determined under a Sandin analysis cannot, without more, lead to the conclusion that the interests will be deemed to weigh particularly heavily.
Secondly, we must evaluate the increase in accuracy that will result from the procedural requirement that the decisionmakers limit their placement decision to the grounds and evidence detailed in the notice *364given to the inmate. A general finding that erroneous and haphazard placements have occurred in the past is insufficient. Instead, under the second factor of El-d-ridge, we must evaluate the extent that the particular procedural requirement increases the accuracy of the decisionmak-ing.
Under the ORDC Officials’ new policy 111-07, inmates received written notice explaining the reasons they were referred for a classification hearing. See J.A. at 716, 731. The district court ordered that, not only must ORDC officials provide advance written notice of the reasons for the referral to a hearing, but that they must also provide “written notice of all the grounds believed to justify [placement] and a summary of the evidence that the [officials] will rely upon for the placement.” Austin v. Wilkinson, 204 F.Supp.2d 1024, 1026 (N.D.Ohio 2002). The district court added a footnote that appears to preclude consideration of evidence not described in the notice: “If [ORDC Officials] elect to use [a proposed form] to give an inmate notice, they must limit the grounds stated on the form and the evidence generally described on the form, to support placement at OSP.” Id. The majority fails to explain, however, how requiring ORDC officials to provide an inmate with such comprehensive notice increases the accuracy of the placement decision for a given inmate. The district court reasoned that
[requiring Department officials to give inmates specific notice of all of the grounds for placing and retaining them at OSP would cause minimal hardship. The officials would only need to expend the additional time to write out their reasons for making a specific classification decision. Furthermore, this minimal amount of additional time would increase the Department’s efficiency. Accurately summarizing all the grounds supporting an inmate’s placement at the OSP would later assist reviewing entities and avoid unnecessary prisoner assignments to the OSP.
Austin v. Wilkinson, 189 F.Supp.2d 719, 746 (N.D.Ohio 2002). The district court’s analysis misapprehends the burden that a comprehensive notice requirement imposes on the government. In making such decisions, ORDC Officials rely on a wide range of information. The hardship in expending additional time to write out reasons for making a specific classification decision may indeed be minimal. However, requiring that, prior to even conducting a hearing, ORDC Officials cull through often voluminous records and note every potentially relevant fact — on pain of barring them from considering any information, no matter how relevant, that was inadvertently omitted — is significantly more onerous. Such burdens have not been shown to be outweighed by the improvement in accuracy' — assuming there is any — asserted to arise from the comprehensive notice requirement.
Nor is the comprehensive notice requirement necessary to vindicate the interests cited by the district court. Under the procedural process required by the district court, the classification committee is responsible only for making the initial recommendation concerning whether an inmate should be assigned to OSP; both the warden (or the warden’s designee) and the Bureau of Classification must agree with the committee’s recommendation before an inmate can be placed at OSP. Austin v. Wilkinson, 204 F.Supp.2d 1024, 1026-28 (N.D.Ohio 2002). At each stage in the process, an inmate must be given a written statement explaining the justification for the placement recommendation and the evidence supporting it, as well as an opportunity to respond to the recommendation in writing. This process provides both a written record for review and ample op*365portunity for inmates to challenge their placement. Accordingly, I would find that the notice required under the new 111-07 is sufficient to satisfy due process in this context.
As to the remaining procedures imposed by the district court, the Government has failed to articulate in any significant manner how they burden the government. On their face the additional procedural requirements appear to increase the accuracy and reliability of the decisionmaking process, and they were arrived at by careful consideration by the district court. The private interest is substantial. I therefore agree that the procedural requirements imposed by the district court, apart from the one discussed above, were properly imposed by the district court.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, I concur in the judgment except to the extent that it upholds the requirement that ORDC Officials provide comprehensive notice to inmates appearing before classification committees.

. I agree that the substantive requirements must be reversed, for the reasons stated in Part 11(C)(2)(a) of the majority opinion.