Kentucky Department of
Corrections v. Thompson case brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
490 U.S. 454, 109 S. Ct.
1904, 104 L. Ed. 2d 506 (1989)
CASE SYNOPSIS:
Petitioners, corrections department and officials, sought certiorari
of a judgment from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit, which affirmed a direction that petitioners had to develop
minimal due process procedures after respondent prison inmates sued
petitioners under U.S. Const. amend. XIV, claiming a liberty interest
in receiving certain visitors.
FACTS: When certain visitors were excluded without hearing, respondent prison inmates sued petitioners, corrections department and officials, in a federal class action under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983, claiming a U.S. Const. amend. XIV liberty interest in receiving certain visitors. After the appellate court affirmed a decision that petitioners had to develop minimal due process procedures, petitioners sought certiorari. The court reversed. Prison regulations did not establish a liberty interest entitled to the protections of the Due Process Clause. The denial of prison access to a particular visitor was well within the terms of confinement ordinarily contemplated by a prison sentence, and therefore was not independently protected by the Due Process Clause. The state procedure provided that visitors could be excluded when officials found reasonable grounds to believe that the visitors' presence constituted a clear and probable danger to an institution's security or interfered with its orderly operation. The regulations at issue lacked the requisite relevant mandatory language for due process to apply.
CONCLUSION: The court reversed direction that petitioners had to develop minimum due process standards because prison regulations did not establish liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause after denial of access to visitors was within terms of confinement ordinarily contemplated by a prison sentence.
FACTS: When certain visitors were excluded without hearing, respondent prison inmates sued petitioners, corrections department and officials, in a federal class action under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983, claiming a U.S. Const. amend. XIV liberty interest in receiving certain visitors. After the appellate court affirmed a decision that petitioners had to develop minimal due process procedures, petitioners sought certiorari. The court reversed. Prison regulations did not establish a liberty interest entitled to the protections of the Due Process Clause. The denial of prison access to a particular visitor was well within the terms of confinement ordinarily contemplated by a prison sentence, and therefore was not independently protected by the Due Process Clause. The state procedure provided that visitors could be excluded when officials found reasonable grounds to believe that the visitors' presence constituted a clear and probable danger to an institution's security or interfered with its orderly operation. The regulations at issue lacked the requisite relevant mandatory language for due process to apply.
CONCLUSION: The court reversed direction that petitioners had to develop minimum due process standards because prison regulations did not establish liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause after denial of access to visitors was within terms of confinement ordinarily contemplated by a prison sentence.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment