Altizer v. Paderick
| Decision Date | 25 January 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-2182,76-2182 |
| Citation | 569 F.2d 812 |
| Parties | Frank Ervin ALTIZER, Jr., Appellant, v. E. L. PADERICK, Individually and as Superintendent, Virginia State Penitentiary, etc., W. M. Riddle, Individually and as Assistant Superintendent, Virginia State Penitentiary, etc., D. R. Lawson, Individually and as Corrections Officer, Virginia State Penitentiary, etc., H. L. Campbell, Individually and as Corrections Officer, Virginia State Penitentiary, etc., and Corrections Officer Stoufer, Individually and as Corrections Officer, Virginia State Penitentiary, etc., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Tracy Dunham, Richmond, Va. (Carolyn J. Colville, Colville & Dunham, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellant.
Patrick A. O'Hare, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va. (Anthony F. Troy, Atty. Gen. of Virginia, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellees.
Before RUSSELL, WIDENER and HALL, Circuit Judges.
The appellant a state prisoner, complains that his removal as an inmate counselor by the prison officials, without a fact finding hearing, was violative of his due process rights. The district court dismissed his action and we affirm.
It is well settled that federal courts do not occupy "the role of super wardens of state penal institutions" (Cooper v. Riddle (4th Cir. 1976)540 F.2d 731, 732), and "do not sit to supervise state prisons" (Meachum v. Fano (1976) 427 U.S. 215, 229, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 2540, 49 L.Ed.2d 451). In particular, the classifications and work assignments of prisoners in such institutions are matters of prison administration, within the discretion of the prison administrators, and do not require fact-finding hearings as a prerequisite for the exercise of such discretion. Cooper v. Riddle, supra; Chapman v. Plageman (W.D.Va.1976) 417 F.Supp. 906, 908. To hold that they are "within reach of the procedural protections of the Due Process Clause would place the Clause astride the day-to-day functioning of state prisons and involve the judiciary in issues and discretionary decisions that are not the business of federal judges." Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. at 228-29, 96 S.Ct. at 2540. It follows that the appellant was not denied any constitutional right by the action of the prison administrators in removing him, without a hearing, from assignment to the inmate advisor program. Nor was the appellant entitled to a due process hearing because the prison officials included in his file the reasons for his transfer from the inmate advisor program, even though such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Field v. West Virginia
...conditions or degree of confinement is within sentence imposed and is not otherwise violative of Constitution"); Altizer v. Paderick, 569 F.2d 812 (4th Cir. 1978)(holding that federal due process constraints are not implicated because the classification of a State prison inmate is a matter ......
-
Dawson v. Kendrick
...the reach of the procedural protection of the Due Process Clause ...." 427 U.S. at 228-29, 96 S.Ct. at 2540; see also Altizer v. Paderick, 569 F.2d 812, 813 (4th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 1009, 98 S.Ct. 1882, 56 L.Ed.2d 391 (1978); Note, A Review of Prisoners' Rights Litigation Und......
-
Pierce v. King
...a property or liberty interest in prison employment." Ingram v. Papalia, 804 F.2d 595, 596 (10th Cir.1986) (citing cases); Altizer v. Paderick, 569 F.2d 812 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 1009, 98 S.Ct. 1882, 56 L.Ed.2d 391 (1978) (no due process right to hearing before removal from pri......
-
Lock v. Jenkins
...Classification and work/educational assignments are matters within the discretion of institution administrators. Altizer v. Paderick, 569 F.2d 812, 813 (4th Cir. 1978), so long as no discrimination is involved. French v. Heyne, 547 F.2d 994 (7th Cir. 1975). K. LOSS OF PROPERTY There are var......