Schevers v. State, 22684

• Citation: 930 P.2d 603,129 Idaho 573
• Decision Date: 17 December 1996
• Docket Number: No. 22684,22684
• Parties: James A. SCHEVERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho, Larry Wright, c/o Redifer, and Sgt. Dave Bromley, Respondents. . Coeur d'Alene, October 1996 Term
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Idaho

Page 603

930 P.2d 603

129 Idaho 573

James A. SCHEVERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho, Larry Wright, c/o Redifer, and Sgt. Dave Bromley, Respondents.

No. 22684.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Coeur d'Alene, October 1996 Term.

Dec. 17, 1996.

James A. Schevers, Boise, pro se appellant.

Alan G. Lance, Attorney General; Michaelina B. Murphy, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

SILAK, Justice.

Appellant James A. Schevers (Schevers) filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were violated during a prison disciplinary proceeding, as were his due process rights under Art. I, Section 13 of the Idaho Constitution. The magistrate court dismissed the petition based on Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995). The district court affirmed and Schevers appeals.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Schevers is incarcerated in the South Idaho Correctional Institution (SICI). In December 1994, Correctional Officer Roy Redifer (Redifer) searched Schevers' locker and found a small bag containing a white powdery substance which was later determined to be methamphetamine. The next day, Schevers was served with a written "Disciplinary Offense Report" (DOR) in which Schevers was charged with "Individual Disruptive Behavior", pursuant to the Idaho Department of Correction Division of Prisons Directive.

Correctional Officer Stuart (Stuart) was assigned as staff representative for Schevers during his disciplinary proceedings. Schevers stated that he spoke with Stuart on December 15, 1994 but never saw him after that. At Schevers' disciplinary hearing on December 19, 1994 Disciplinary Hearing Officer Bromley (Bromley) informed Schevers that it was Stuart's day off. In his affidavit, Bromley stated that he asked Schevers if the presence of a staff representative was necessary, and Schevers said it was not. Schevers disputes this version of events, and maintains that he was not given the opportunity to obtain another staff representative or wait until Stuart was available. Bromley's affidavit also indicates that for safety reasons, the methamphetamine was not brought to the hearing, although affidavits in the record indicate that Schevers was shown a copy of the evidence envelope, which listed the chain of custody. Bromley also found that the chain of custody was intact. Finally, the record also reflects that Lieutenant Sanders could have appeared to testify to the chain of custody, but that Schevers indicated that was not necessary.

Based on Redifer's report, Bromley found Schevers guilty of Individual Disruptive Behavior. That report listed a drug dog alert to Schevers' area, the finding of the bag, and the positive drug test on contents of the bag as evidence of Schevers' guilt. Bromley sentenced Schevers to 55 days in restrictive custody (or disciplinary segregation confinement), with five days credit for time served.

Schevers served that sentence, and also filed an Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus in Ada County. The magistrate court granted the State's motion to dismiss, ruling that under Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995), "neither the prison regulations nor the Due Process Clause itself affords the petitioner a protected liberty interest that would entitle petitioner to the procedural protection set forth in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974), at a disciplinary hearing where the sentence was segregated confinement."

Schevers appealed to the district court. After a hearing, the district court affirmed the magistrate court, holding that under Sandin, there is no right to due process in a prison disciplinary setting unless the punishment is atypical. Specifically, the court ruled that the holding of the Sandin decision was "that there is no constitutional right under the Federal Fourteenth Amendment to due process in prison created through state regulations unless the punishment is atypical." Further, the court held that Sandin effectively overruled the earlier Idaho case of Bourgeois v. Murphy, 119 Idaho 611, 809 P.2d 472 (1991), and that the procedural requirements of Cootz v. State, 117 Idaho 38, 785 P.2d 163 (1989), had been met.

Schevers appeals.

II. ISSUES ON APPEAL

1. Does Sandin v. Conner eliminate an inmate's due process protections during disciplinary hearings under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution?

2. Does the Sandin decision eliminate an inmate's due process protections under art. I, Section 13 of the Idaho Constitution?

3. Is the State entitled to its attorney fees on appeal on the basis that the appeal is frivolous?

III. ANALYSIS

When reviewing a district court's decision, made while the district court was acting in its appellate capacity, this Court examines the magistrate's record independently. However, we give due regard to the district court's decision on the matter. Application of Henry, 127 Idaho 349, 350, 900 P.2d 1360, 1361 (1995). This Court will uphold the magistrate's findings if they are supported by substantial and competent evidence. This case involves a constitutional question, over which we exercise free review. Id.

The magistrate court dismissed Schevers' petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. When a petition for habeas corpus has been dismissed, the appellate court reviews the dismissal for abuse of discretion. Johnson v. State, 85 Idaho 123, 127, 376 P.2d 704, 706 (1962). See also Brandt v. State, 126 Idaho 101, 103, 878 P.2d 800, 802 (Ct.App.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1005, 115 S.Ct. 523, 130 L.Ed.2d 427 (1994).

A. In Light Of Sandin v. Conner, An Inmate Does Not Have A Protected Liberty Interest Under The Fourteenth Amendment In Remaining Free From Disciplinary Segregation, And Therefore Is Not Entitled To Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Protections.

To determine whether an individual's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment have been violated, a court must engage in a two-step analysis. It must first decide whether the individual's threatened interest is a liberty or property interest under the Fourteenth Amendment. Smith v. Meridian Joint Sch. Dist. No. 2., 128 Idaho 714, 722, 918 P.2d 583, 591 (1996) (citing Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569-70, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2705, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972)). Only if it finds a liberty or property interest will the court reach the next step, in which it determines the extent of due process procedural protections. Id.

Schevers argues that he had a protected liberty interest in remaining free from prison disciplinary segregation. The United States Supreme Court recently addressed this very issue. In Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995), Conner, a maximum security inmate in the Hawaii prison system, was charged with and convicted of high misconduct in prison, and prison officials sentenced him to 30 days disciplinary segregation. Conner filed suit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, based in part on alleged deprivations of due process during his disciplinary hearing. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the prison officials. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Conner had a liberty interest in remaining free from disciplinary segregation, and was therefore entitled to Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process protections. 515 U.S. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 2296.

The United States Supreme Court reversed. It began its discussion with a history of cases regarding liberty interests in a prison setting. Id. at ---- - ----, 115 S.Ct. at 2297-99 (discussing Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976); Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 103 S.Ct. 864, 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983)). The Court noted that over the years, the prison liberty interest inquiry evolved into a focus on alleged entitlements created by prison regulations, rather than on the nature of the punishment at stake. This in turn "encouraged prisoners to comb regulations in search of mandatory language on which to base entitlements to various state-conferred privileges." 515 U.S. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 2299. Further, two "undesirable effects" became apparent: there were disincentives to states to codify prison management, and courts became involved in the day-to-day management of prisons. Id. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 2299.

To remedy this problem, the Supreme Court set forth a new standard for determining when a prisoner has a protected liberty interest:

we recognize that States may under certain circumstances create liberty interests which are protected by the Due Process Clause. But these interests will be generally limited to freedom from restraint which, while not exceeding the sentence in such an unexpected manner as to give rise to protection by the Due Process Clause of its own force, nonetheless imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.

515 U.S. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 2300 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court then held that Conner did not have a protected liberty interest in remaining free from disciplinary segregation, because that punishment was not an atypical and significant hardship. Id. at ---- - ----, 115 S.Ct. at 2300-01. It did not "present a dramatic departure from the basic conditions of Conner's indeterminate sentence", and "with insignificant exceptions, mirrored those conditions imposed upon inmates in administrative segregation and protective custody." Id. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 2301.

In further explaining its decision, the Court contrasted prison discipline with school discipline and pretrial detainee discipline, and stated that:

[t]he punishment of incarcerated prisoners, ... does not impose retribution in lieu of a valid conviction, nor does it maintain physical control...