Wilkinson v. Austin

Supreme Court of the United States · 2005 · Administrative Law

Administrative LawProcedural Due ProcessPrison AdministrationSupermaxOhio State Penitentiaryliberty interestatypical and significant hardshipprocedural due process

Facts

Ohio's Ohio State Penitentiary is its highest-security Supermax facility, where inmates are kept in extreme isolation, usually in their cells for 23 hours per day, with very limited human contact, indefinite placement, and loss of parole eligibility while confined there. Under Ohio's New Policy, an inmate considered for OSP placement receives at least 48 hours' written notice of the basis for review, access to the Security Designation Long Form, a hearing before a three-member committee, an opportunity to attend and present information or objections, and later review by the warden and the Bureau of Classification. If placement is approved, the inmate receives written reasons, may file objections with the Bureau, receives review within 30 days of arrival, and thereafter annual review. The inmates argued these procedures were constitutionally insufficient before assignment to OSP.

Issue

Whether Ohio inmates have a protected liberty interest in avoiding assignment to the Ohio State Penitentiary, and if so, whether Ohio's New Policy provides sufficient procedural due process before such placement. More specifically, the Court considered whether the Constitution required the additional procedural protections ordered by the lower courts.

Rule

A state-created liberty interest in avoiding restrictive prison conditions exists when the conditions impose an atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. Once such a liberty interest is established, the sufficiency of procedures is evaluated under Mathews v. Eldridge by balancing the inmate's interest, the risk of erroneous deprivation and the value of added safeguards, and the State's interests; in the prison classification context, informal, nonadversary procedures such as notice of the factual basis, an opportunity for rebuttal, multiple levels of review, and a short statement of reasons may satisfy due process.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nevada operates a high-security unit in Reno where selected prisoners spend 23 hours a day alone, may exercise only in a small indoor cage, have almost no human contact, and remain there for an open-ended period with review only once a year. While housed there, otherwise eligible inmates cannot be considered for parole. Mateo Ruiz challenges his placement procedures.

Before deciding what process is due, should a court likely find that Mateo has a protected liberty interest in avoiding assignment to this unit?

Explanation. The majority held that the touchstone is the nature of the conditions, not mandatory regulatory language. A state-created liberty interest exists when the confinement imposes an atypical and significant hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. Extreme isolation, indefinite placement, and loss of parole eligibility, taken together, suffice. The Constitution does not itself create a liberty interest in avoiding any transfer to harsher conditions, and Sandin rejected reliance on mandatory language alone.