Cooper v. Riddle
| Citation | 540 F.2d 731 |
| Decision Date | 02 August 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-1573,75-1573 |
| Parties | Jesse A. X. COOPER et al., Appellants, v. Walter M. RIDDLE, Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary, Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit) |
Jamie Lee Hingle, Jack Griffeth and Dan Dugan, Third Year Law Students (Donald H. Beskind, Denver, Colo. (court-appointed counsel) and Kathryn A. Gibbons, Third Year Law Student, on brief), for appellants.
Stuart Bateman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va., and (Andrew P. Miller, Atty. Gen. Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellee.
Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and FIELD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Jesse A. X. Cooper, on behalf of himself and ten other prisoners, instituted this action against the Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs alleged that their procedural due process rights had been violated by the Institutional Classification Committee (ICC) in its reclassification of each of them into maximum security status. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment supported by affidavits and exhibits which was granted by the district court, and the plaintiffs have appealed.
In the Virginia Correctional System there are two committees which deal with the custodial status of prisoners. The Institutional Adjustment Committee (IAC) deals directly with prisoner discipline while the ICC is charged only with prisoner classification. The ICC makes general institutional placements of inmates and reviews all security classifications and job assignments. It is not used to administer corrective action or to punish an inmate, and its foremost consideration is the safety and welfare of both the inmates and the institution. The IAC, on the other hand, addresses itself to the violation of prison rules and regulations, and in any case where punitive action appears to be appropriate the inmate is referred to the IAC.
In the present case Cooper and his fellow plaintiffs were transferred to maximum security by the ICC in the wake of episodes of prison violence in which they were allegedly involved. The district court, in granting the defendant's motion, concluded that while the procedural requirements delineated in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974), might appropriately be directed to the IAC, they were not applicable to reclassification proceedings of the ICC. 1 In challenging this conclusion of the district court, the plaintiffs in their brief and oral argument placed primary reliance upon Clutchette v. Procunier, 497 F.2d 809 (9 Cir. 1974), modified on rehearing, 510 F.2d 613 (1975), and we deferred disposition of this appeal pending the decision of the Supreme Court in that case. 2
In Clutchette the court of appeals had held that in a disciplinary proceeding an inmate was entitled to counsel; prison authorities should provide reasons in writing to inmates who were denied the privilege of cross-examination or confrontation of witnesses against them; and that minimum due process such as notice, opportunity for response, and statement of reasons for action by prison officials was necessary where inmates were deprived of privileges. 3 The Supreme Court reversed 4 and in the course of its opinion reiterated its conclusion in Wolff that inmates do not " 'have a right to either retained or appointed counsel in disciplinary hearings.' " 5 The Court further observed that "(m)andating confrontation and cross-examination, except where prison officials can justify their denial on one or more grounds that appeal to judges," 6 was an inappropriate intrusion upon the area "that Wolff had left to the sound discretion of prison officials." 7 Finally, with respect to notice, opportunity for response and statement of reasons by prison officials, the Court observed that the procedures required by the court of appeals were either inconsistent with Wolff or premature in the light of the record in that case.
Following closely upon Clutchette, the Court handed down its decision in Meachum v. Fano, --- U.S. ----, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 48 L.Ed.2d --- (1976), which bears even more directly upon the case before us. In Meachum certain prisoners were suspected of involvement in serious fires in the institution and were transferred to a maximum security institution by the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dawson v. Kendrick
...See Bills v. Henderson, 631 F.2d 1287, 1291 (6th Cir. 1980); Walker v. Hughes, 558 F.2d 1247, 1255 (6th Cir. 1977); Cooper v. Riddle, 540 F.2d 731, 732 (4th Cir. 1976). If the challenged act is one exercised in good faith, is committed solely to the discretion of prison officials and does n......
-
Paoli v. Lally
...substantive limitations on official discretion." 461 U.S. 249, 103 S.Ct. at 1747, 75 L.Ed.2d at 823. To the extent that Cooper v. Riddle 540 F.2d 731 (4th Cir.1976) and Gorham v. Hutto 667 F.2d 1146 (4th Cir. 1981) held that prison regulations alone cannot create protected liberty interests......
-
Vice v. Harvey, Civ. A. No. 77-1515.
...427 U.S. 236, 96 S.Ct. 2543, 49 L.Ed.2d 466 (1976) as well as the statements by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cooper v. Riddle, 540 F.2d 731 (4th Cir. 1976) make clear, a prisoner may be transferred to another institution for administrative — (Meachum, Cooper) — or disciplinary — (......
-
Williams v. Stacy
...427 U.S. 236, 96 S.Ct. 2543, 49 L.Ed.2d 466 (1976), it is arguable that Virginia has created such an expectation, Cooper v. Riddle, 540 F.2d 731, 732 (4th Cir. 1976); Peterson v. Davis, 421 F.Supp. 1220, 1223 (E.D.Va.1976). Thus for the purposes of this case the court will assume without de......