Jensen v. Satran

• Decision Date: 30 March 1983
• Docket Number: Cr. N
• Citation: 332 N.W.2d 222
• Parties: Herbert O. JENSEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Winston SATRAN, Warden, N.D. State Penitentiary, Defendant and Appellee. o. 910.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Page 222

332 N.W.2d 222

Herbert O. JENSEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Winston SATRAN, Warden, N.D. State Penitentiary, Defendant

and Appellee.

Cr. No. 910.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

March 30, 1983.

Herbert O. Jensen, Bismarck, pro se.

Vincent LaQua, State's Atty., Fessenden, and Edwin F. Zuern, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Bismarck, for defendant and appellee; argued by Zuern.

VANDE WALLE, Justice.

Herbert O. Jensen has appealed from an order of the district court of Wells County denying his application for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

On November 23, 1981, Jensen was involved in a fighting incident with another inmate in the recreation building at the State Penitentiary. Both inmates were immediately placed in disciplinary segregation. Approximately one hour later, Jensen received an incident report charging him with a violation of the penitentiary rule against fighting with another person and notifying him that he would be called before the penitentiary adjustment committee. Jensen was released from disciplinary segregation the next day and subsequently filed a grievance report concerning the incident.

On November 27, 1981, Jensen appeared before the penitentiary adjustment committee. On the basis of the information included in the incident report, Jensen's testimony, and the testimony of the penitentiary officer who had witnessed the incident, the adjustment committee determined that Jensen had violated prison rules by striking another inmate. For this violation the committee recommended that Jensen lose one month of good time, lose 30 days' gym privileges, and spend 15 days in disciplinary segregation with 10 days suspended if he did not commit any further infractions for 60 days. One day of credit was also given for the time Jensen spent in disciplinary segregation after the fighting incident.

The adjustment committee's recommendation was upheld in appeals by Jensen to the warden of the penitentiary and to the director of institutions. Jensen then petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, which was denied by the district court and subsequently by this court. We determined that Jensen's request for relief should have been brought under the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act, Chapter 29-32, N.D.C.C., rather than under the habeas corpus statutes. Following the dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief by the Federal courts for failure to exhaust State remedies, Jensen filed an application for post-conviction relief in State district court, alleging that the adjustment committee had disciplined him in violation of the penitentiary rules and regulations and in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The district court determined there had been no denial of due process to Jensen and denied his application for post-conviction relief. It is from the district court's order denying his application for post-conviction relief that Jensen has appealed.

Jensen alleges his due-process rights were violated because the disciplinary action was not conducted according to prison regulations. Specifically, Jensen claims the following violations occurred: (1) the incident report contained no list of witnesses and no statement of rights; (2) the disciplinary hearing was not held within 72 hours after he was charged with fighting; (3) his request to call witnesses at the disciplinary hearing was denied and no reasons were given for this denial; (4) no determination was made by the warden regarding his detention in disciplinary segregation prior to the adjustment committee hearing; (5) no written notice of the reasons for the disciplinary board's findings and disposition was given; and (6) the penalty imposed was in excess of the penalty listed for a rule violation in the prison recreation building. ¹

We have held that an institution which adopts rules by which discipline therein is to be maintained should conscientiously attempt to follow its own rules because where those rules are followed, respect for the law is enhanced, but where those rules are not followed, respect for the law is diminished. Havener v. Glaser, 251 N.W.2d 753 (N.D.1977). In the prison context, the requirement of reasonably precise rules is not an empty formality; notice of behavioral standards enhances the inmate's sense of fair play and reduces the risk of arbitrary administration. Matz v. Satran, 313 N.W.2d 740 (N.D.1981). In the instant case, however, we do not believe Jensen's due-process rights were violated by any failure of penitentiary officials to follow institutional rules in the disciplinary proceedings.

"The touchstone of due process is the protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government." Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 558, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2976, 41 L.Ed.2d 935, 952 (1974). The right to statutory good-conduct sentence reduction, which can be forfeited for rules violation or the refusal to work, is a valuable liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. Wolff v. McDonnell, supra; Matz v. Satran, supra; Havener v. Glaser, supra; Sec. 12-54.1-02, N.D.C.C. In Wolff v. McDonnell, supra, the United States Supreme Court held that where an inmate's constitutionally protected interests are at stake, the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause requires the State prison's disciplinary proceedings to afford an inmate the following protections: (1) at least 24 hours' advance written notice of the claimed violation; (2) a written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action taken; and (3) the right to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in defense when to do so would not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals.

However, while the forfeiture of statutory good-time credits constitutes a valuable liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause, the transfer of an inmate to less amenable and more restrictive quarters for nonpunitive reasons is well within the terms of confinement. Hewitt v. Helms, --- U.S. ----, ----, 103 S.Ct. 864, 869, 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). In determining whether or not prisoners are deprived of a "liberty" interest within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as a result of prison action depends upon the nature of the loss to the prisoner. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976); Havener v. Glaser, supra. Because the discipline recommended in the instant case included the forfeiture of statutory good time which has been held to be a protected liberty interest, we will subject this case to Due Process analysis, although in doing so we do not necessarily determine whether or not Jensen's confinement in disciplinary segregation and the loss of 30 days' gym privileges constitute sufficient deprivations of liberty to invoke due-process protection.

Having determined that a protected liberty interest is involved, we must now decide whether the process afforded Jensen in disciplinary proceedings satisfied the minimum requirements of the Due Process Clause. The very nature of due process negates the concept of inflexible procedures universally applicable to every imaginable situation; instead, the requirements imposed by the Clause are flexible and variable and dependent upon the particular situation being examined. Wolff v. McDonnell, supra; Hewitt v. Helms, supra. In determining what process is due under the Fourteenth Amendment, we must consider the private interests at stake in a governmental decision, the governmental interests involved, and the value of procedural requirements. Hewitt v. Helms, supra; Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976).

It has been repeatedly said that prison officials have broad administrative and discretionary authority over the institutions they manage and that lawfully incarcerated persons retain only a narrow range of protected liberty interests. Hewitt v. Helms, supra. Lawful imprisonment necessarily makes unavailable many rights and privileges of the ordinary citizens, a "retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system." Hewitt v. Helms, supra, --- U.S. at ----, 103 S.Ct. at 869; Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 266, 285, 68 S.Ct. 1049, 1060, 92 L.Ed. 1356, 1369 (1948). As the Supreme Court in Wolff, supra, stated:

"Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply. Cf. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. at 488, 92 S.Ct. [2593] at 2603, [33 L.Ed.2d 484 at 498 (1972) ]. In sum, there must be mutual accommodation between institutional needs and objectives and the provisions of the Constitution that are of general application." 418 U.S. at 556, 94 S.Ct. at 2975, 41 L.Ed.2d at 951.

In determining what is "due process" in the prison context, "one cannot automatically apply procedural rules designed for free citizens in an open society ... to the very different situation presented by a disciplinary proceeding in a state prison." Hewitt v. Helms, --- U.S. at ----, 103 S.Ct. at 872; Wolff v. McDonnell, supra, 418 U.S. at 560, 94 S.Ct. at 2977, 41 L.Ed.2d at 953. "Prison administrators ... should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and maintain institutional security." Hewitt v. Helms, supra, --- U.S. at ----, 103 S.Ct. at 872; Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1878, 60 L.Ed.2d 447, 474 (1979). The administration of a prison is at best an extraordinarily difficult undertaking. Hewitt v. Helms, supra, --- U.S. at ----, 103 S.Ct. at 868; Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. at 566, 94 S.Ct. at 2980, 41 L.Ed.2d at 957. The safety of guards and inmates is perhaps the most fundamental responsibility of the prison administration. Hewitt v. Helms, supra, --- U.S. at ----, 103 S.Ct. at 872; Bell v. Wolfish, s...