Goforth v. Mo. Dept. of Corrections, WD59657

• Citation: 62 S.W.3d 566
• Decision Date: 30 October 2001
• Docket Number: WD59657
• Parties: Jamal F. Goforth, Appellant Pro Se, v. Missouri Department of Corrections, Respondent. WD59657 Missouri Court of Appeals Western District
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

Jamal F. Goforth, Appellant Pro Se v Missouri Department of Corrections, Respondent

WD59657

Missouri Court of Appeals Western District

10/30/2001

Appeal From: Circuit Court of Cole County, Hon. Thomas Joseph Brown III

Counsel for Appellant: Party Acting Pro Se

Counsel for Respondent: John Munson Morris III and Cassandra Dolgin

Opinion Summary:

Jamal F. Goforth, a prisoner at Central Missouri Correctional Center, filed a petition for declaratory judgment contending that he had a liberty interest created by section 217.345, RSMo, in participation in a correctional treatment program for first time offenders, a program that the Missouri Department of Corrections has not established. The court sustained the department of corrections' motion for summary judgment. Goforth appeals from that judgment.

Goforth alleges that the court erred in dismissing his complaint and in granting respondent's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that he failed to state an equal protection claim. He also alleges that his due process rights were violated by the department's failure to place him in a treatment program.

Division holds: 1) Neither "first time offenders" nor "youthful offenders" are suspect classes. The disparate treatment between them as a result of the department's establishment of a treatment program for one group and not the other does not constitute invidious discrimination, and it rationally relates to the legitimate state interest of providing rehabilitation and treatment to youthful offenders who are placed in the department. There is, therefore, no equal protection violation.

2) Goforth does not have a liberty interest in participation in or creation of a correctional treatment program for first offenders. He has not alleged anything that would constitute a significant hardship, and the program into which Goforth sought admission does not exist. Because no inmate is a participant, neither is the hardship imposed upon Goforth atypical.

Smith, P.J., and Howard, J., concur.

Ronald R. Holliger, Judge

Jamal F. Goforth, a prisoner at Central Missouri Correctional Center, filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment in Cole County Circuit Court, contending that he had a liberty interest created by section 217.345 RSMo in participation in a correctional treatment program for first offenders, a program that the Missouri Department of Corrections has not established. The circuit court sustained the Department of Corrections' Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed Goforth's petition with prejudice. Goforth appeals from that judgment. Because there is no due process violation and because Goforth does not have a liberty interest in participation in or creation of a correctional treatment program for first offenders, we affirm.Facts

The statute at issue in this case provides for the establishment of two distinct types of treatment programs:

1. Correctional treatment programs for first offenders in the department shall be established, subject to the control and supervision of the director, and shall include such programs deemed necessary and sufficient for the successful rehabilitation of offenders.

2. Correctional treatment programs for offenders who are younger than seventeen years of age shall be established, subject to the control and supervision of the director. By January 1, 1998, such programs shall include physical separation of offenders who are younger than seventeen years of age from offenders who are seventeen years of age or older.

3. The department shall have the authority to promulgate rules pursuant to subsection 2 of section 217.378 to establish correctional treatment programs for offenders under age seventeen. . . .

section 217.345 RSMo

Goforth is a first time offender serving a 24-year sentence. He was sentenced in 1991, when he was 18 years old. Some time before June 18, 1998, Goforth requested that he be placed in the First Time Offenders Rehabilitation Program. The record does not indicate that Goforth ever asked to be placed in the program established for youthful offenders. Nevertheless, in response to his request, Goforth received two letters from the Department of Corrections explaining to him that he was ineligible for the "First Time Offenders" treatment or rehabilitation program because he was over 17 years of age.

Goforth filed a petition on July 14, 2000, in the Circuit Court of Cole County alleging that his due process and equal protection rights had been violated by the Department of Corrections' failure to establish a treatment program for first time offenders pursuant to section 217.345.1 RSMo 1982, and by the Department's failure to include him in such a program. He requested declaratory relief, and sought to be placed on parole and awarded damages as compensation.

The Department of Corrections filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that section 217.345.2 RSMo did not apply to Goforth because he was over the age of 17. The circuit court sustained the motion, stating that Goforth does not have a liberty interest in participation in the youthful offenders program because he is over the age of 17, and that the legislature had a rational basis for distinguishing between offenders under 17 years of age and those over 17; therefore, there was no equal protection violation.

This appeal followed.Standard of Review

We must review the record in the light most favorable to...