LEONARD BEAN, APPELLANT,
v.
R.L. DUGGER AND T.N. BIGHAM, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Leonard Bean, a Florida prison inmate in administrative confinement, appealed the summary denial of his habeas corpus petition claiming he was denied notice and an opportunity to be heard at his reclassification hearing. The appellate court reversed, holding that Florida law guarantees inmates a liberty interest in avoiding arbitrary transfers to administrative segregation and a right to present their views at such hearings.
Florida recognizes an inmate's liberty interest in being free from arbitrary transfers to administrative segregation. When Florida law provides procedural rights to a hearing, inmates are entitled to notice of charges and an opportunity to present their views. The word "may" in the rule provides a privilege to the inmate to appear and be heard; it does not grant prison officials unfettered discretion to deny this right.
[1] An inmate has no federal due process right to a hearing prior to transfer to administrative confinement or segregation, but states may provide such procedural rights.
[2] If a state grants inmates procedural rights regarding confinement status reclassification, inmates are entitled to notice of charges and an opportunity to present their v…
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“While an inmate has no federal due process right to a hearing prior to his transfer to administrative confinement or segregation, the individual states may provide such procedural rights. Should a state accord these rights, then the inmate is entitled to notice of the charges against him and an opportunity to present his views to a reviewing board.”
Establishes that while no federal right exists, states may grant procedural rights to inmates, and if they do, notice and opportunity to be heard are required.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeonard Bean was an inmate in administrative confinement at Florida State Prison. He filed a habeas corpus petition alleging he was denied notice of h…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus cases and more on FLexlaw
ZEHMER, Judge.
Appellant appeals the summary denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. For the reasons stated below, we reverse and remand to the trial court with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing on the petition.
Leonard Bean, an. inmate in administrative confinement at Florida State Prison, alleged in his petition that he was denied notice of his confinement-status reclassification hearing and the opportunity to be present at the hearing and give testimony. While an inmate has no federal due process right to a hearing prior to his transfer to administrative confinement or segregation, the individual states may provide such procedural rights. Should a state accord these rights, then the inmate is entitled to notice of the charges against him and an opportunity to present his views to a reviewing board. Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 103 S.Ct. 864, 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983).
In Granger v. Florida State Prison, 424 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), this court held that Florida recognizes an inmate’s liberty interest in being free from arbitrary transfers from the general prison population to administrative segregation. Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-3.083(4)(a) (1983), provides in relevant part:
Any inmate placed in close management shall be given a hearing before the Senior Correctional Officer or the Close Management Review Team, which may be the Classification Team or another group of three to five qualified staff members appointed by the Superintendent. ... The inmate may present any facts or arguments relevant to his placement in close management. [Emphasis added.]
Appellee argued that use of the word “may” in the above rule is permissive and means that prison officials may, in their unfettered discretion, deny an inmate the right to present his views at a hearing. Thus, appellee argues, appellant has been denied no right. This argument is ridiculous. The rule extends a privilege to the inmate to appear and be heard, and the sentence is worded to accomplish that purpose. Clearly, the word “shall” could not have been used because an inmate cannot be compelled to present his own testimony.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ERVIN and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thompson v. Dugger, 509 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…4 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). In Florida, Rule 33-3.0083(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code (1986), entitles the inmate to notice of the charges against him and an opportunity to be heard prior to being placed on Close Management Status. See Bean v. Dugger, 475 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). In the present case, the only notice apparent from the petition and attachments does not provide any indication of the charges against appellant. Rather, it merely states that his status will be reviewed with a recommendation th…
Authorities Cited
- Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (U.S. 1983)
- Granger v. Fla. State Prison & Bill Price, 424 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)