Wright v. Dermitt

Idaho Supreme Court

Wright v. Dermitt

660 P.2d 940, 104 Idaho 475, 1983 Ida. LEXIS 416

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 14, 1983

DocketNos. 13842, 14076

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 660 P.2d 940 (Wright v. Dermitt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wright v. Dermitt, 660 P.2d 940, 104 Idaho 475, 1983 Ida. LEXIS 416 (Idaho 1983).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Respondents in these two appeals are inmates at the Idaho State Correctional Institution (ISCI). They filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus, contending they were denied their constitutional rights by being placed in the maximum security unit at ISCI without due process. Their petitions were denied at the magistrate level, and the denials were reversed on appeal to the district court.

The issue presented is whether persons sentenced to the state prison have the right to a hearing, with minimal procedural due process safeguards, before being placed in maximum security confinement for administrative reasons. This court has previously determined that due process dictates a hearing be held before prisoners may be placed in maximum security confinement for disciplinary reasons. State v. Wolfe, 99 Idaho 382, 582 P.2d 728 (1978); Calkins v. May, 97 Idaho 402, 545 P.2d 1008 (1976). In State v. Wolfe, supra, we noted that the United States Supreme Court had recently affirmed a federal district court decision requiring certain procedural due process protections in the confinement of inmates in maximum security units for administrative reasons. Enomoto v. Wright, 434 U.S. 1052, 98 S.Ct. 1223, 55 L.Ed.2d 756 (1978). In Calkins v. May, supra, we relied on the minimum procedural requirements set out in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). The question now is whether these limited due process safeguards extend to administrative custody classifications whereby prisoners are placed in maximum security confinement. We hold that they do.

Since, subsequent to the filings by petitioners and prior to this appeal, regulations have been adopted at the prison which do establish minimum procedural safeguards attendant to custody classification procedures, there remains no issue for us to determine, and the decisions of the district court in each action are therefore affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Respondents in these two appeals are inmates at the Idaho State Correctional Institution (ISCI). They filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus, contending they were denied their constitutional rights by being placed in the maximum security unit at ISCI without due process. Their petitions were denied at the magistrate level, and the denials were reversed on appeal to the district court.

The issue presented is whether persons sentenced to the state prison have the right to a hearing, with minimal procedural due process safeguards, before being placed in maximum security confinement for administrative reasons. This court has previously determined that due process dictates a hearing be held before prisoners may be placed in maximum security confinement for disciplinary reasons. State v. Wolfe, 99 Idaho 382, 582 P.2d 728 (1978); Calkins v. May, 97 Idaho 402, 545 P.2d 1008 (1976). In State v. Wolfe, supra, we noted that the United States Supreme Court had recently affirmed a federal district court decision requiring certain procedural due process protections in the confinement of inmates in maximum security units for administrative reasons. Enomoto v. Wright, 434 U.S. 1052, 98 S.Ct. 1223, 55 L.Ed.2d 756 (1978). In Calkins v. May, supra, we relied on the minimum procedural requirements set out in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). The question now is whether these limited due process safeguards extend to administrative custody classifications whereby prisoners are placed in maximum security confinement. We hold that they do.

Since, subsequent to the filings by petitioners and prior to this appeal, regulations have been adopted at the prison which do establish minimum procedural safeguards attendant to custody classification procedures, there remains no issue for us to determine, and the decisions of the district court in each action are therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

660 P.2d 940, 104 Idaho 475, 1983 Ida. LEXIS 416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-dermitt-idaho-1983.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack