Mahoney v. Carter

• Decision Date: 30 January 1997
• Docket Number: No. 95-SC-802-DG,95-SC-802-DG
• Citation: 938 S.W.2d 575
• Parties: Larry MAHONEY, Appellant, v. Rocky CARTER, Appellee.
• Court: Supreme Court of Kentucky

Page 575

938 S.W.2d 575

Larry MAHONEY, Appellant, v.Rocky CARTER, Appellee.

No. 95-SC-802-DG.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

Jan. 30, 1997.

Mark Wettle, Appellate Public Advocate, Louisville, for Appellant.

John T. Damron, Barbara W. Jones, Susan Alley, Justice Cabinet, Department of Corrections, Office of General Counsel, for Appellee.

LAMBERT, Justice.

Appellant, Larry Mahoney, is currently serving a term of sixteen years in the Kentucky State Reformatory, pursuant to convictions in the Carroll Circuit Court for twenty-seven counts of Wanton Endangerment, twenty-seven counts of Manslaughter in the First Degree, and twelve counts of Assault in the First Degree.

In accordance with the policies and procedures promulgated by the Kentucky Department of Corrections, appellant was classified upon his entry into the Corrections system and received a custody classification of medium.Likewise following the policies and procedures of the Department of Corrections, in September of 1993, appellant met with the Reclassification Committee at the Kentucky State Reformatory.The Committee, utilizing the procedures adopted by the Corrections Department, calculated that appellant's custody level should be changed to minimum, and also concluded that he should be transferred to Firehouse, a facility for minimum security inmates located near the Kentucky State Reformatory in LaGrange.The Branch Manager of the Assessment/Classification Programs reviewed the conclusions of the Reclassification Committee and applied an override which served to maintain appellant at his prior custody classification.

Appellant filed a civil action in the Oldham Circuit Court alleging a violation of his rights to due process and equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and his right to be free from arbitrary and capricious actions as guaranteed under Section Two of the Kentucky Constitution.The Oldham Circuit Court dismissed appellant's complaint and the dismissal was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.This Court granted discretionary review and appellant has presented two arguments for our consideration.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred when it failed to recognize that the policies and procedures of the Corrections Department, by placing substantial limitations on official discretion, create a constitutionally protected liberty interest which accords him a legitimate claim of entitlement to a minimum security custody status.To resolve this issue, we must first determine whether the procedures and policies create such a protected liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment."A liberty interest protectible under the Fourteenth Amendment may arise only when implicated by the Constitution, or a state law or regulation."Beard v. Livesay, 798 F.2d 874, 875(1986)citingHewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 466, 103 S.Ct. 864, 868-69, 74 L.Ed.2d 675(1983).Unlike persons who are free in society, persons who are lawfully incarcerated have only the narrowest range of protected liberty interests.Hewitt, 459 U.S. at 467, 103 S.Ct. at 869.It is well established that a prisoner has no inherent right to a particular security classification or to be housed in a particular institution.Beard, 798 F.2d at 876.In fact, so long as the conditions or the degree of confinement to which the prisoner is subjected do not exceed the sentence which was imposed and are not otherwise in violation of the Constitution, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not subject an inmate's treatment by prison authorities to judicial oversight.Hewitt, 459 U.S. at 468, 103 S.Ct. at 869-70.Therefore, any liberty interest which may apply to appellant must be created by state law or regulation.

Actions of a state which create such a liberty interest were outlined by the United States Supreme Court as follows:

[A] State creates a protected liberty interest by placing substantial limitations on official discretion.An inmate must show 'that particularized standards or criteria guide the State's decisionmakers.'[citations omitted] If the decisionmaker is not 'required to base its decisions on objective and defined criteria,' but instead 'can deny the requested relief for any constitutionally permissible reason or for no reason at all,'[citations omitted]the State has not created a constitutionally protected liberty interest.

Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249, 103 S.Ct. 1741, 1747, 75 L.Ed.2d 813, 823(1983).It has also been held that prison officials may create liberty interests through official promulgations, policy statements, or regulations.Walker v. Hughes, 558 F.2d 1247, 1255(6th Cir.1977).

Where statutes or prison policy statements have limited prison officials' discretion by imposing a specific prerequisite to the forfeiture of benefits or favorable living conditions enjoyed by a prisoner, an expectation or entitlement has been created which cannot be taken away without affording the prisoner certain due process rights.On the other hand, when prison officials have complete discretion in making a decision that will affect the inmate, no expectation or protected liberty interest has been created.

Beard, 798 F.2d at 877(quotingBills v. Henderson, 631 F.2d 1287, 1291(6th Cir.1990)).

In the case at bar, the Department of Corrections policy and procedures in effect at the...