Olim v. Wakinekona
| Decision Date | 26 April 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-1581,81-1581 |
| Citation | 103 S.Ct. 1741,461 U.S. 238,75 L.Ed.2d 813 |
| Parties | Antone OLIM, et al., Petitioners v. Delbert Kaahanui WAKINEKONA |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Petitioner members of a prison "Program Committee," after investigating a breakdown in discipline and the failure of certain programs within the maximum control unit of the Hawaii State Prison outside Honolulu, singled out respondent and another inmate as troublemakers. After a hearing—respondent having been notified thereof and having retained counsel to represent him—the same Committee recommended that respondent's classification as a maximum security risk be continued and that he be transferred to a prison on the mainland. Petitioner administrator of the Hawaii prison accepted the Committee's recommendation, and respondent was transferred to a California state prison. Respondent then filed suit against petitioners in Federal District Court, alleging that he had been denied procedural due process because the Committee that recommended his transfer consisted of the same persons who had initiated the hearing, contrary to a Hawaii prison regulation, and because the Committee was biased against him. The District Court dismissed the complaint, holding that the Hawaii regulations governing prison transfers did not create a substantive liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court of Appeals reversed.
Held:
1. An interstate prison transfer does not deprive an inmate of any liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause in and of itself. Just as an inmate has no justifiable expectation that he will be incarcerated in any particular prison within a State so as to implicate the Due Process Clause directly when an intrastate prison transfer is made, Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 49 L.Ed.2d 451; Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 96 S.Ct. 2543, 49 L.Ed.2d 466, he has no justifiable expectation that he will be incarcerated in any particular State. Statutes and interstate agreements recognize that, from time to time, it is necessary to transfer inmates to prisons in other States. Confinement in another State is within the normal limits or range of custody which the conviction has authorized the transferring State to impose. Even when, as here, the transfer involves long distances and an ocean crossing, the confinement remains within constitutional limits. Pp. 244-248.
2. Nor do Hawaii's prison regulations create a constitutionally protected liberty interest. Although a State creates a protected liberty in- terest by placing substantive limitations on official discretion, Hawaii's prison regulations place no substantive limitations on the prison administrator's discretion to transfer an inmate. For that matter, the regulations prescribe no substantive standards to guide the Program Committee whose task is to advise the administrator. Thus no significance attaches to the fact that the prison regulations require a particular kind of hearing before the administrator can exercise his unfettered discretion. Pp. 248-251.
664 F.2d 708 (CA9 1981), reversed.
Michael A. Lilly, Honolulu, Hawaii, for petitioners.
Robert Gilbert Johnston, Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
The issue in this case is whether the transfer of a prisoner from a state prison in Hawaii to one in California implicates a liberty interest within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Respondent Delbert Kaahanui Wakinekona is serving a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole as a result of his murder conviction in a Hawaii state court. He also is serving sentences for various other crimes, including rape, robbery, and escape. At the Hawaii State Prison outside Honolulu, respondent was classified as a maximum security risk and placed in the maximum control unit.
Petitioner Antone Olim is the administrator of the Hawaii State Prison. The other petitioners constituted a prison "Program Committee." On August 2, 1976, the Committee held hearings to determine the reasons for a breakdown in discipline and the failure of certain programs within the prison's maximum control unit. Inmates of the unit appeared at these hearings. The Committee singled out respondent and another inmate as troublemakers. On August 5, respondent received notice that the Committee, at a hearing to be held on August 10, would review his correctional program to determine whether his classification within the system should be changed and whether he should be transferred to another Hawaii facility or to a mainland institution.
The August 10 hearing was conducted by the same persons who had presided over the hearings on August 2. Respondent retained counsel to represent him. The Committee recommended that respondent's classification as a maximum security risk be continued and that he be transferred to a prison on the mainland. He received the following explanation from the Committee:
Petitioner Olim, as administrator, accepted the Committee's recommendation, and a few days later respondent was transferred to Folsom State Prison in California.
B
Rule IV of the Supplementary Rules and Regulations of the Corrections Division, Department of Social Services and Housing, State of Hawaii, approved in June 1976, recites that the inmate classification process is not concerned with punishment. Rather, it is intended to promote the best inter- ests of the inmate, the State, and the prison community.1 Paragraph 3 of Rule IV requires a hearing prior to a prison transfer involving "a grievous loss to the inmate," which the Rule defines "generally" as "a serious loss to a reasonable man." App. 21.2 The administrator, under ¶ 2 of the Rule, is required to establish "an impartial Program Committee" to conduct such a hearing, the Committee to be "composed of at least three members who were not actively involved in the process by which the inmate . . . was brought before the Committee." App. 20. Under ¶ 3, the Committee must give the inmate written notice of the hearing, permit him, with certain stated exceptions, to confront and cross-examine witnesses, afford him an opportunity to be heard, and apprise him of the Committee's findings. App. 21-24.3
The Committee is directed to make a recommendation to the administrator, who then decides what action to take:
"(b) hold in abeyance any action he believes jeopardizes the safety, security, or welfare of the staff, inmate . . ., other inmates . . ., institution, or community and refer the matter back to the Program Committee for further study and recommendation." Rule IV, ¶ 3d(3), App. 24.
The regulations contain no standards governing the administrator's exercise of his discretion. See Lono v. Ariyoshi, 63 Haw. 138, 144-145, 621 P.2d 976, 980-981 (1981).
C
Respondent filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against petitioners as the state officials who caused his transfer. He alleged that he had been denied procedural due process because the Committee that recommended his transfer consisted of the same persons who had initiated the hearing, this being in specific violation of Rule IV, ¶ 2, and because the Committee was biased against him. The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii dismissed the complaint, holding that the Hawaii regulations governing prison transfers do not create a substantive liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. 459 F.Supp. 473 (1978).4
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, by a divided vote, reversed. 664 F.2d 708 (1981). It held that Hawaii had created a constitutionally protected liberty interest by promulgating Rule IV. In so doing, the court declined to follow cases from other Courts of Appeals holding that certain procedures mandated by prison transfer regulations do not create a liberty interest. See, e.g., Cofone v. Manson, 594 F.2d 934 (CA2 1979); Lombardo v. Meachum, 548 F.2d 13 (CA1 1977). The court reasoned that Rule IV gives Hawaii prisoners a justifiable expectation that they will not be transferred to the mainland absent a hearing, before an impartial committee, concerning the facts alleged in the pre-hearing notice.5 Because the Court of Appeals' decision created a conflict among the circuits, and because the case presents the further question whether the Due Process Clause in and of itself protects against interstate prison transfers, we granted certiorari. 456 U.S. 1005, 102 S.Ct. 2294, 73 L.Ed.2d 1299 (1982).
In Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976), and Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 96 S.Ct. 2543, 49 L.Ed.2d 466 (1976), this Court held that an intrastate prison transfer does not directly implicate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Meachum, inmates at a Massachusetts medium security prison had been transferred to a maximum security prison in that Commonwealth. I...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Olivia Y. ex rel. Johnson v. Barbour, No. CIV.A.3:04 CV 251LN.
...liberty interests arise when a state places "substantive limitations on official discretion." Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249, 103 S.Ct. 1741, 1747, 75 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983); Kentucky Dep't of Corrections, 490 U.S. at 462, 109 S.Ct. at 1909-10[, 104 L.Ed.2d 506 (1989)]. A state substanti......
-
Adkins v. Kernan
... ... 427 U.S. at 225-27; or in remaining in a prison in a ... particular state, see Olim v. Wakinekona , 461 U.S ... 238, 245-47 (1983) ... In ... determining whether state law confers a liberty interest, the ... ...
-
Giaimo v. New Haven
...110 S. Ct. 540, 107 L. Ed. 2d 537 (1989)]; Fleury v. Clayton, 847 F.2d 1229, 1231 (7th Cir. 1988); see Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 248-51, 103 S. Ct. 1741, 75 L. Ed. 2d 813 (1983); Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 471, 103 S. Ct. 864, 74 L. Ed. 2d 675 (1983).... Even if the statute incl......
-
Moss v. Clark, Civ. A. No. 88-0361-AM.
...is not created by a law or regulation that does not place significant limits on official discretion. Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249, 103 S.Ct. 1741, 1747, 75 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983). Put another way, Moss must establish that the Act establishes particularized standards for the awarding of......
-
Off the Mapp: parole revocation hearings and the Fourth Amendment.
...infringe constitutionally protected liberty interests by failing to set limits on a state's authority to transfer a prisoner out of state. 461 U.S. 238, 244-48 (1983). See Bamonte, supra note 87, at (96) See United States v. Finney, 897 F.2d 1047 (10th Cir. 1990); United States v. Bazzano, ......
-
Enemy aliens.
...Zadvydas, 121 S. Ct. at 2500. (123.) 338 U.S. 537 (1950). (124.) See, e.g., Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 466 (1983); Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 248-49 (1983) (holding that state prison regulations did not create a liberty interest implicated by a transfer to another state); Conn. B......
-
TERRITORIALITY IN AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW.
...IMPRISONMENT 19 (2008). (239.) Kaufman, supra note 232, at 1826-27. (240.) Id. at 1828. (241.) Id. at 1828-29. (242.) Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 247 (243.) Kaufman, supra note 234, at 70. (244.) Id. at 71. (245.) Id. (246.) American citizens repatriated to the United States are resen......
-
A. Your First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech and Association
...allow transferring a person to a prison far from home or family, even though this makes visitation very difficult. Olim v. Wakinekona, 103 S. Ct. 1741 (1983). One court allowed temporary suspension of visits of minors after a person in prison had a sexual phone call with his wife when his c......