Klein complains that his case manager was not consulted in this decision as is allegedly required under Regulation No. I am bound by the state court's construction of its own laws and regulations. However, this is the regulation cited by the Colorado Court of Appeals in Milligan for the proposition that classification decisions are discretionary. Klein relies heavily on Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC) Regulation No. Accordingly, Klein's reclassification implicated no liberty interest within the meaning of the due process clause. 1989) (Colorado law does not create liberty interest in inmate's classification level). Colorado Dep't of Corrections, 751 P.2d 75, 76 (Colo. Rather, "inmate classification decisions are within the discretion of Department of Corrections officials. at 463.Ĭolorado law does not mandate that a prisoner receive a particular classification. that the regulations contain 'explicitly mandatory language,' i.e., specific directives to the decisionmaker that if the regulations' substantive predicates are present, a particular outcome must follow, in order to create a liberty interest." Id. As to the second criterion, the Supreme Court has "articulated a requirement. However, the most common is by (1) establishing "substantive predicates" to govern official decisionmaking then (2) mandating the outcome to be reached upon a finding that the relevant criteria have been met. " state creates a protected liberty interest by placing substantive limitations on official discretion." Olim v. Absent a state-created liberty interest, neither a change in a prisoner's security classification, nor a prisoner's transfer from one prison to another implicates a liberty interest within the meaning of the due process clause. The initial inquiry is whether the reclassification or transfer implicated a "liberty" interest within the meaning of the due process clause. Rather, Klein must allege specific facts showing a constitutional deprivation. However, conclusory allegations of constitutional deprivation do not suffice. The complaint should not be dismissed unless, accepting Klein's allegations as true, it appears beyond doubt that he can prove no set of facts to support the claim for relief. In addition, Klein alleges that his right to privacy was violated when he was forced to shower in an open shower stall while being observed by female prison officials.īecause Klein pursues his claims pro se, I construe his complaint liberally. In his amended complaint Klein alleges that his due process and equal protection rights were violated when, without a hearing, he was: (1) given a less favorable prison security classification (the reclassification) (2) transferred from a medium security facility to a maximum security facility and (3) placed in the segregation unit of the medium security facility. After de novo review, I accept the recommendation in part, reject it in part, and refer the case back to the Chief Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. ç 1983 action be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Plaintiff Bret Klein (Klein) objects to the Chief Magistrate Judge's recommendation that Klein's 42 U.S.C. Bret Klein, Limon, Colorado, for Plaintiff. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADOħ67 F. ERNIE PYLE, FRANK GUNTER, RICK SOARES and JAMES MARRIOTT, JR., Defendants Pyle, 767 F.Supp 215 (DC COLO 1991).īRET KLEIN, Plaintiff, v. The Court also held that Klein had a limited privacy right not to be regularly watched by prison officials of the opposite sex while he showered. Klein also stated a claim by alleging in his complaint that he was purposely singled out for harsher treatment than that accorded similarly situated prisoners. The Court held the plaintiff did state claim with regards to being put in segregation because the record was unclear as to whether it was segregation for punitive or administrative reasons. The Court held that neither the Constitution nor Colorado prison regulations created a liberty interest in being classified or kept at one prison over another. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss and the District Court denied it in part and granted it in part. The plaintiff also claimed that his right to privacy was violated when he was forced to shower in an open shower stall while being observed by female prison officials. Privacy Right Not To Be Viewed Naked By Opposite Sex Prison GuardsĪ Colorado state prisoner filed suit under § 1983 claiming violation of his rights to due process and equal protection when he was placed in isolation at a medium security prison and then transferred to another prison. Share: Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on G+ Share with email
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |