Lono v. Ariyoshi

• Decision Date: 02 January 1981
• Docket Number: No. 6729,6729
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
• Parties: Peter LONO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George ARIYOSHI, individually and in his capacity as Governor of Hawaii; Andrew Chang, individually and in his capacity as Director of Social Services& Housing, State of Hawaii; Michael Kakesako, individually and in his capacity as Administrator, Corrections Division, Department of Social Services & Housing; Antone Olim, individually and in his capacity as Administrator, Hawaii State Prison; and Edwin Shimoda, individually and in his capacity as Chairperson, Lono Program Committee, Defendants-Appellees.

Page 976

621 P.2d 976

63 Haw. 138

Peter LONO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George ARIYOSHI, individually and in his capacity as

Governor of Hawaii; Andrew Chang, individually and in his

capacity as Director of Social Services& Housing, State of

Hawaii; Michael Kakesako, individually and in his capacity

as Administrator, Corrections Division, Department of Social

Services & Housing; Antone Olim, individually and in his

capacity as Administrator, Hawaii State Prison; and Edwin

Shimoda, individually and in his capacity as Chairperson,

Lono Program Committee, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 6729.

Supreme Court of Hawai'i.

Jan. 2, 1981.

Syllabus by the Court

1. A state prisoner's procedural rights under the United States constitution are triggered only when a state action involves his property or liberty interest.

2. The only source of a state prisoner's protected interest under the United States Constitution is state law.

3. HRS § 706-672, and Rule IV of the Supplementary Rules and Regulations of the Corrections Division of the Department of Social Services and Housing of the State of Hawaii (Rules), do not clothe a state prisoner with the liberty interest required to trigger his procedural rights under the United States Constitution.

4. A grievous loss visited by a state upon a state prisoner is insufficient to invoke the protections of the due process clause of the United States Constitution, the determining factor being the nature of the interest involved.

5. Under the Hawaii Constitution, as under the United States Constitution, a grievous loss is insufficient to invoke the protection of the due process clause, the determining factor being the nature of the interest involved.

6. HAPA does not apply to classification hearing under the Rule because such hearing does not involve a contested case.

Wayne R. Young, Honolulu (David S. Hobler, Honolulu, on the opening brief; Hawaii Correctional Legal Services, Inc., of counsel) for plaintiff-appellant.

Michael A. Lilly, Deputy Atty. Gen., Honolulu, for defendants-appellees.

Before RICHARDSON, C. J., MENOR and OGATA, JJ., and Retired Justice MARUMOTO in place of KOBAYASHI, J., excused. ^*

MARUMOTO, Justice.

This is an appeal by plaintiff Peter Lono from the order of the First Circuit Court dismissing his complaint against the Governor of Hawaii, and other State officials concerned with the administration of Hawaii State Prison (HSP).

In the complaint, plaintiff sought temporary and permanent injunctive relief against his transfer from HSP to a mainland penal institution, and a declaratory judgment that his transfer would be in violation of the constitutions of the United States and the State of Hawaii, and the Supplementary Rules and Regulations of the Corrections Division (Rules) of the State Department of Social Services and Housing (DSSH).

Plaintiff was convicted of murder in the second degree in the First Circuit Court, and was sentenced to a maximum term of 99 years in HSP on November 19, 1970. Thereafter, the following events transpired within the HSP administration:

January, 1976 : Plaintiff and five other HSP inmates were segregated from the general prison population on the basis of information from confidential sources that they were leaders of an inmate strike. For his participation in the strike, plaintiff was sentenced to one year in the maximum control unit. However, that sentence was suspended, and plaintiff remained in the general prison population.

Summer, 1976 : State of Hawaii arranged with the Bureau of Prisons, United States Department of Justice (FBP), and the State of California, to transfer HSP inmates to mainland prisons during the construction of new prison facilities in Hawaii.

September 27, 1976 : HSP administrator submitted a tentative list of eight inmates, including plaintiff, to FBP for its approval. However, no decision to transfer had been made at that time.

November 8, 1976 : FBP informed HSP administrator that it would accept plaintiff at the Federal prison on McNeil Island, Washington.

February 11, 1977 : HSP Program Committee (PPC) notified plaintiff to be present at the committee meeting on February 16, 1977, to be held for the following purpose:

Reason for meeting: To determine whether your classification within the Corrections Division should be changed. The Committee will consider your entire file, your changing needs, resources and facilities available to the Corrections Division, and the security of the State facilities and personnel. The Committee will consider whether you should remain at HSP, or be transferred to a mainland state or federal institution.

February 22, 1977 : PPC meeting, which was originally scheduled to be held on February 16 was postponed at the request of plaintiff's counsel and was held on this day. At the meeting, PPC chairman read a letter from HSP administrator to a State deputy attorney general regarding plaintiff's organization of the inmate work strike and his segregation from the general inmate population. The administrator declined to testify at the meeting because he was the reviewing officer of PPC findings. PPC also considered information from a confidential source regarding plaintiff's drug involvement and covert backyard predatory activities. At the conclusion of the meeting, PPC recommended that plaintiff be transferred to a mainland Federal prison, pursuant to its findings that (a) plaintiff posed a behavioral/management problem; (b) his maximum security classification restricted his participation in HSP programs; and (c) there were more programs available to him at a Federal prison.

March 3, 1977 : HSP administrator sustained PPC recommendation.

On March 16, 1977, plaintiff filed his complaint in the circuit court. The circuit court, after denying the temporary injunctive relief sought by plaintiff, entered its order denying permanent injunction, and dismissing the complaint, on August 11, 1977.

In the meantime, plaintiff was transferred from HSP, first to the Federal prison on McNeil Island, and later to the Federal prison at Marion, Illinois.

On this appeal, plaintiff has presented the following four questions for decision by this court: first, whether the procedure followed by PPC at its meeting on February 22, 1977, violated his due process rights under the fourteenth amendment of the United States constitution; second, whether it violated his due process rights under Article I, Section 4, of the Hawaii constitution; third, whether it violated his procedural rights under the Rules; and, fourth, whether it violated his procedural rights under the Hawaii Administrative Procedure Act (HAPA). ¹

The first three questions are questions as to which plaintiff sought declaratory judgment in his complaint. The fourth question was not raised by plaintiff in his complaint, or any amendment thereto, but was brought up orally by plaintiff's counsel in his argument in the circuit court.

A state prisoner's procedural rights under the United States constitution are outlined in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974).

The procedure set forth in Wolff v. McDonnell is triggered only when a state action involves an infringement of state prisoner's property or liberty interest. This point is not disputed by plaintiff. ²

Under Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976), the only source of a state prisoner's protected interest is state law.

Plaintiff has not contended that he had any property interest which was subject to infringement by his transfer from HSP to a mainland Federal prison.

That narrows our inquiry to whether plaintiff had any liberty interest under Hawaii law which would have triggered the application of the procedural requirements of Wolff v. McDonnell.

Plaintiff asserts that HRS § 706-672, and Rule IV of the Rules, clothed him with the requisite liberty interest.

HRS § 706-672 provides that, when a person is sentenced to imprisonment for an indeterminate term, the court shall commit him to the custody of DSSH for the term of his sentence and until he is released in accordance with law; that the court shall determine the initial place of confinement; and that the director of DSSH shall determine the proper program of redirection and any subsequent place of confinement best suited to meet the individual needs of the committed person.

Rule IV of the Rules, which was in effect at the time plaintiff's hearing was held, dealt with the classification process, as distinguished from the adjustment process, and stated that it never inflicted any punishment but was concerned with a continuing evaluation of each individual inmate to ensure his optimum placement within the Corrections Division.

With regard to HRS § 706-672, plaintiff contends that it provides a prisoner "with the expectation that he will not be moved to another prison unless it is determined that the transfer is better suited to his needs."

Similarly, with respect to Rule IV of the Rules, it is contended that, under the rule, "the prisoner has a justifiable expectation rooted in Hawaii law, that he will not be transferred unless it is determined by an impartial committee that optimum placement lies within another institution."

In connection with plaintiff's contention based on HRS § 706-672, as well as his contention based on Rule IV of the Rules, Meachum v. Fano, supra, and Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 96 S.Ct. 2543, 49 L.Ed.2d 466 (1976) are pertinent.

Meachum v. Fano presented to the United States Supreme Court two questions for decision on a petition for a writ of certiorari from a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

The first question was whether the United States constitution required Massachusetts correctional officials to conduct fact finding hearings in connection with transfers of duly convicted state prisoners from a medium security correctional facility at Norfolk to maximum security correctional...