Wilkinson v. Austin

Last updated
Wilkinson v. Austin
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued March 30, 2005
Decided June 13, 2005
Full case nameWilkinson, Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction v. Austin et al.
Citations545 U.S. 209 ( more )
125 S. Ct. 2384; 162 L. Ed. 2d 174
Case history
PriorRuling in favor of the prison inmate plaintiffs, 189 F. Supp. 2d 719 (N.D. Ohio 2002), as modified, 204 F. Supp. 2d 1024 (N.D. Ohio 2002), affirmed by the Sixth Circuit, 372 F.3d 346 (6th Cir. 2004); cert. granted, 543 U.S. ___ (2005).
Holding
Ohio's procedures for assigning prisoners to its Supermax facility conform with procedural due process protections.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Case opinion
MajorityKennedy, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV

Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that while the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment gives rise to a liberty interest in not being placed in a Supermax prison, Ohio's procedures for determining which prisoners should be placed there satisfied the requirements of due process.

Contents

Background

The State of Ohio opened its Supermax facility, the Ohio State Penitentiary, in 1998 after a riot in one of its maximum security prisons. The OSP is more restrictive than a maximum security unit, a "highly restrictive form of solitary confinement". Inmates remain at OSP indefinitely, up to the maximum term of their sentences; if a prisoner is serving a life sentence, he may remain at OSP until he dies.

The Ohio prison system determines which inmates will be placed at the OSP Supermax in the following manner. When an inmate enters the prison system, he is assigned a numerical ranking based on his security risk, from 1 to 5. The higher number represents a greater security risk. Inmates assigned level 5 are placed at OSP. Initially, there were no criteria governing which inmates would be rated 5, and some inmates who did not, in fact, pose tremendous security risks nevertheless received ratings of 5. The Ohio prison system formulated criteria for classifying inmates in 1999 and again in 2002. Under the 2002 policy, inmates were classified either upon entry into the prison system or after certain conduct took place. A three-member committee convenes to review the inmate's file and hold a hearing. At least 48 hours before the hearing, the inmate is notified about the conduct that triggered the classification. The inmate may attend the hearing and offer "pertinent information" or objections to OSP placement, but he may not call witnesses. The committee may decline to recommend OSP placement, at which point the process terminates.

If, however, the committee does recommend placement in OSP, the committee reports its recommendation to the warden of the inmate's current prison or, if the review took place upon the prisoner's initial entry into the prison system, to another designated official. The warden may veto the recommendation, at which point the process also terminates. If the warden concurs, he provides a written explanation and forwards both his recommendation and the committee's to the Bureau of Classification, an agency of the Ohio prison system. The inmate may also submit written objections to the Bureau. The Bureau may also veto the committee's recommendation; if it does not, the inmate is transferred to OSP.

Inmates assigned to OSP are reviewed within 30 days of arriving there. If the reviewer determines that the inmate is not appropriately placed, the reviewer provides a written report to the warden at OSP. The warden forwards the report, along with his own report, to the Bureau. If the Bureau agrees with the recommendation, the inmate is transferred to a lower-security prison. Otherwise, he will remain at OSP for at least another year, at which time another such review will take place.

Procedural history

Austin and other OSP inmates brought suit against officials of the Ohio prison system under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, [1] alleging that Ohio's procedure for determining which inmates will be placed at OSP violates their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio held an eight-day trial at which it heard testimony from expert witnesses. It concluded that the inmates had a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause in not being assigned to OSP, and demanded that the Ohio prison system make significant substantive and procedural changes to the process by which it assigned inmates to OSP. The State appealed to the Sixth Circuit, which affirmed the procedural modifications but set aside the substantive modifications. As a result of the Sixth Circuit's ruling, Ohio prison officials were required to:

  1. Furnish to the inmate before the hearing a list of all the grounds upon which OSP placement could be based, and were thus forbidden to rely on factors not on that list;
  2. Allow the prisoner to make an oral or written statement to the committee, and call witnesses on his behalf in a manner consistent with prison security concerns;
  3. Explain in greater detail after the hearing the reason for the committee's decision; and
  4. Explain to the inmate, every six months, what conduct would allow the inmate to be removed from OSP placement.

The State of Ohio asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Sixth Circuit's decision, and it agreed to do so.

Opinion of the Court

The Court first had to decide whether the prison inmates had a protected liberty interest in avoiding placement in OSP. In the Sixth Circuit, Ohio had taken the position that they did not. In the Supreme Court, however, Ohio conceded that they did. Of its own force, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not guarantee that state prisoners will not be placed in more restrictive conditions of confinement. However, individual state procedural guarantees may give rise to a protected liberty interest, as the Court had held in Sandin v. Conner , 515 U.S. 472 (1995). In Conner, the Court held that a protected liberty interest can arise only after examining the "ordinary incidents of prison life". Short periods of administrative segregation imposed as punishment for violating prison rules thus did not implicate a liberty interest, because inmates in the general population experience periods of lockdown, the degree of confinement in administrative segregation was not excessive, and the duration of the segregation period was not disruptive to the inmate's environment.

The Court did not find it necessary to define what the "ordinary incidents" of prison life were, vis-à-vis confinement in Supermax conditions, for "assignment to OSP imposes an atypical and significant hardship under any plausible baseline." Prisoners in OSP are forbidden "almost all human contact". They may not converse with each other from cell to cell. Lights are on 24 hours a day, though for some periods of time the light is dimmed. Inmates are allowed only one hour of exercise per day, in a small indoor room. These circumstances may be common to mere administrative segregation; however, unlike the administrative segregation considered in Conner, placement at OSP was for an indefinite period of time, and such placement rendered an inmate ineligible for parole. The Court found that the combination of these two sets of conditions rose to the level of an "atypical and significant hardship within the correctional context", and hence gave rise to a liberty interest in avoiding placement in OSP. This is so despite any purported necessity of controlling the danger posed by high-risk inmates.

Having found a liberty interest in avoiding placement in OSP, the Court went on to consider whether Ohio afforded its inmates the required procedural protections. The particular protections required emerged from a three-part balancing test first articulated in Mathews v. Eldridge , 424 U.S. 319 (1976). The three factors are (1) the private interest affected by the official action, (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation by the procedures used, and the marginal value of any increased protections, and (3) the burden on the government that adding those increased protections would impose. After weighing these factors, the Court concluded that Ohio afforded its inmates the requisite procedures. The interest in avoiding assignment to a Supermax facility must be "evaluated... within the context of the prison system and its attendant curtailment of liberties." Ohio afforded inmates notice that it was considering placing them in OSP and a fair opportunity for rebuttal; this was consistent with the procedural protections afforded in other prison administration contexts. Furthermore, Ohio's requirement that it explain the factual basis for the classification review and offer the inmate an opportunity for rebuttal "safeguards against the inmate being mistaken for another or being singled out for insufficient reason". At each of the three levels, the reviewing administrator can decline to recommend OSP placement, at which point the process terminates. The Court found this arrangement preferable to Ohio's former system, under which inmates were sometimes placed in OSP without any explanation at all. Because the inmate will always have an explanation of the reasons for recommended OSP placement, he will always have something to argue against when he proceeds to the next level of review or comes up for his next suitability hearing.

The third prong of Mathews addresses the burden on the state; in the prison context, this factor is a dominant consideration. Prison security, particularly the management of prison gangs, "provides the backdrop of the State's interest". As the State of California pointed out in an amicus brief, "clandestine, organized, fueled by race-based hostility, and committed to fear and violence as a means of disciplining their own and their rivals, gangs seek nothing less than to control prison life and to extend their power outside prison walls." Testifying against a member of the gang can bring swift, lethal retribution. And because many heinous gang members are serving life sentences, the ordinary deterrent of a prison sentence for new crimes is diminished.

Furthermore, prison is an expensive proposition. Ohio spends nearly $35,000 to house one inmate in a maximum security prison for one year, and over $49,000 to house an inmate at OSP for the same period of time. The prison system can devote its scarce resources to Supermax prisons for some dangerous inmates, or it can spend money on vocational and rehabilitative programs for inmates whose prospects are better. Courts should "give substantial deference to prison management decisions before mandating additional expenditures for elaborate procedural safeguards when correctional officers conclude that a prisoner has engaged in disruptive behavior". In light of the danger to potential witnesses on behalf of candidates for OSP placement, particularly the difficulty in predicting when certain inmate-witnesses will be the targets of reprisal from gangs, the Court concluded that allowing the inmate to call witnesses to testify at a classification hearing was not required by due process.

Finally, after balancing the Mathews factors, the Court concluded that Ohio's procedure for assigning inmates to OSP is adequate to safeguard an inmate's liberty interest in avoiding being sent there. The state was not directly trying to take away credit toward a sentence that an inmate had already earned, an action that requires greater procedural safeguards. The heavy reliance on the expertise of prison administrators also supported the conclusion that Ohio's procedures were adequate.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Solitary confinement</span> Strict form of imprisonment

Solitary confinement is a form of imprisonment in which an incarcerated person lives in a single cell with little or no contact with other people. It is a punitive tool used within the prison system to discipline or separate incarcerated individuals who are considered to be security risks to other incarcerated individuals or prison staff, as well as those who violate facility rules or are deemed disruptive. However, it is also used as protective custody on incarcerated individuals whose safety is threatened by others in order to separate them from the general prison population.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pelican Bay State Prison</span> Prison in California operated by the CDCR

Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP) is a supermax prison facility in Crescent City, California. The 275-acre (111 ha) prison takes its name from a shallow bay on the Pacific coast, about 2 mi (3.2 km) to the west.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">ADX Florence</span> Federal supermax prison located in Fremont County, Colorado, US

The United States Penitentiary, Administrative Maximum Facility, commonly known as ADX Florence or Supermax, is an American federal prison in Fremont County near Florence, Colorado, operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, a division of the United States Department of Justice. ADX Florence, constructed in 1994 and opened one year later is classed as a supermax or "control unit" prison, thus providing a higher, more controlled level of custody than a maximum security prison. ADX Florence forms part of the Federal Correctional Complex, Florence, which is situated on 49 acres of land and houses different facilities with varying degrees of security, including the adjacent United States Penitentiary, Florence High.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supermax prison</span> Most secure levels of custody in the prison systems of certain countries

A super-maximum security (supermax) or administrative maximum (ADX) prison is a "control-unit" prison, or a unit within prisons, which represents the most secure level of custody in the prison systems of certain countries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oregon State Penitentiary</span> Prison in Salem, Oregon, U.S.

Oregon State Penitentiary (OSP), also known as Oregon State Prison, is a maximum security prison in the northwest United States in Salem, Oregon. Originally opened in Portland 172 years ago in 1851, it relocated to Salem fifteen years later. The 2,242-capacity prison is the oldest in the state; the all-male facility is operated by the Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC). OSP contains an intensive management wing, which is being transformed into a psychiatric facility for mentally ill prisoners throughout Oregon.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Southern Ohio Correctional Facility</span> Maximum security prison in Scioto County, Ohio, U.S.

The Southern Ohio Correctional Facility is a maximum security prison located just outside Lucasville in Scioto County, Ohio. The prison was constructed in 1972. As of 2022, the warden is Donald Redwood.

Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that when state law requires the state to grant parole whenever a prisoner satisfies certain conditions, due process requires the state to allow the prisoner to present evidence in support of his request for parole and to furnish a written explanation of the reasons why his request has been denied.

Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that due process required that prison disciplinary decisions to revoke good-time credits must be supported by "some evidence."

Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that:

Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the common law rule that the insane cannot be executed; therefore the petitioner is entitled to a competency evaluation and to an evidentiary hearing in court on the question of their competency to be executed.

Red Onion State Prison (ROSP) is a supermax state prison located in unincorporated Wise County, Virginia, near Pound. Operated by the Virginia Department of Corrections (VADOC), it houses about 800 inmates. The prison opened in August 1998.

The Tamms Correctional Center is a closed Illinois Department of Corrections prison located in Tamms, Illinois. Prior to its 2013 closure, the prison housed people in two sections: (1) a 200-bed minimum security facility, opened in 1995, and (2) a 500-bed supermax facility known as the Closed Maximum Security Unit ("CMAX"), opened in 1998, that housed people defined by the prison leadership as most disruptive and dangerous.

Ruiz v. Estelle, 503 F. Supp. 1265, filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, eventually became the most far-reaching lawsuit on the conditions of prison incarceration in American history.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2013 California prisoner hunger strike</span>

The 2013 California prisoner hunger strike started on July 8, 2013, involving over 29,000 inmates in protest of the state's use of solitary confinement practices and ended on September 5, 2013. The hunger strike was organized by inmates in long term solitary in the Security Housing Unit (SHU) at Pelican Bay State Prison in protest of inmates housed there that were in solitary confinement indefinitely for having ties to gangs. Another hunger strike that added to the movement started the week before in High Desert State Prison. The focus of the High Desert State Prison hunger strike was to demand cleaner facilities, better food and better access to the library.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Solitary confinement in the United States</span> Form of strict imprisonment in the United States

In the United States penal system, upwards of 20 percent of state and federal prison inmates and 18 percent of local jail inmates are kept in solitary confinement or another form of restrictive housing at some point during their imprisonment. Solitary confinement (sometimes euphemistically called protective custody, punitive segregation (PSEG) or room restriction) generally comes in one of two forms: "disciplinary segregation," in which inmates are temporarily placed in solitary confinement as punishment for rule-breaking; and "administrative segregation," in which prisoners deemed to be a risk to the safety of other inmates, prison staff, or to themselves are placed in solitary confinement for extended periods of time, often months or years.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">August Rebellion</span>

The August Rebellion refers to the August 28, 1974 uprising at the Bedford Hills Correctional Facility for Women, a New York State prison in Bedford Hills in the Town of Bedford, Westchester County, New York, United States. In August 1974, about 200 women imprisoned at Bedford Hills rebelled, taking over parts of the prison, in protest of the inhumane treatment of Carol Crooks. A subsequent civil-action lawsuit, ruled in the inmates favor, led to greater protections of Fourth Amendment rights for incarcerated people.

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that prisoners retained some due process rights when incarcerated. In particular, the Court ruled that due process required that prison disciplinary decisions to revoke good-time credits must be accompanied by notification of the inmate, administrative hearings, the chance to call witnesses and present evidence, and a written statement detailing the nature of the offense committed and the evidence for said offense.

Prisoners' Justice Day is a solidarity movement that takes place annually on August 10. The movement began in Canada in 1974 in support of prisoners’ rights and to remember all the people who have died of unnatural deaths while incarcerated. The first Prisoners' Justice Day was held at the Millhaven Institution on August 10, 1975, on the first anniversary of Edward Nolan's death. In addition to a day of mourning, six prisoners took part in an eighteen-day hunger strike. In 1976, August 10 was recognized as a memorial day where prisoners would strike in opposition to the use of solitary confinement and to protest inmate conditions within the Prison System by going on a one-day hunger strike and refusing to work.

The Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston was a Canadian inquiry headed by Justice Louise Arbour concerned with prisoners' rights and the treatment of federally-incarcerated women. The Commission's final report was released in 1996, and was dubbed the Arbour Report.

References