MICHAEL THOMPSON, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD L. DUGGER, ET AL., APPELLEE
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.
Michael Thompson, a Florida State Prison inmate, challenged the denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging his placement on Close Management Status. The court reversed, finding that Thompson did not receive adequate notice of the charges against him as required by Florida Administrative Code before his classification status was changed.
Although inmates have no constitutional due process right to notice and a hearing before confinement status changes absent state law creation of such a right, Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-3.0083(4)(a) does entitle inmates to notice of charges and an opportunity to be heard. Thompson's notice was inadequate because it did not specify the charges against him but merely stated his status would be reviewed with a recommendation for Close Management Status placement.
[1] State law may create a constitutional due process right to notice and a hearing before an inmate's confinement status is changed, even if no such right exists under feder…
[2] Florida law requires an inmate to receive notice of the charges against him and an opportunity to be heard before being placed on Close Management Status.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Although an inmate has no constitutional due process right to notice and a hearing before his confinement status is changed, such right may be created by state law.”
Establishes the framework that while federal constitutional protections don't automatically apply to classification changes, states can create such protections through law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThompson was placed in segregated confinement for possession of a weapon and received a notice recommending Close Management Status, but was returned …
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 State-Created Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
NIMMONS, Judge.
This is an appeal from a denial of the appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. We reverse.
Appellant, an inmate at Florida State Prison, makes the following allegations in his petition for writ of habeas corpus which was summarily denied without an evidentiary hearing. He was placed in segregated confinement for possession of a weapon. While on segregated confinement, he received a notice from the Close Management Team1 indicating that “classification status will be reviewed by the close management team with the following status change recommended: CM/I due to possession of a weapon on July 22, 1984.” After review, appellant was not placed on Close Management Status, but returned to the general prison population. A few days later, he was found guilty of disciplinary violation for cursing a guard. After notice and a hearing, he was again placed in segregated confinement. While in this confinement, he received the following notice:
Your classification status will be ... reviewed by the Close Management Assignment Team, with the following status change recommended ...: Assignment To Close Management I Status.
A hearing was held after which the Close Management Team determined that based on thirteen disciplinary reporte being filed within the last twenty-six months and because of appellant’s assaultive nature, he would be placed on close management status. Appellant filed an administrative grievance which was denied and filed the instant habeas petition.
Although an inmate has no constitutional due process right to notice and a hearing before his confinement status is changed, such right may be created by state law. Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 103 S.Ct. 864, 74 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 that he be placed on Close Management Status. Cf. Kelly v. Nix, 329 N.W. 2d 287 (Iowa 1983) (in which the notice, although bare-bones, did inform the inmate of the charges against him). We therefore remand the cause for the writ to issue and for an evidentiary hearing to be held to determine whether the allegations of the appellant are true. If the notice alleged in the petition is all that appellant received, then there has been a failure to afford the prisoner the due process required by Florida law.
The order denying writ of habeas corpus is REVERSED and this cause is REMAND ED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SHIVERS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . The Close Management Team evaluates inmates with disciplinary problems to determine whether they should be segregated from the general prison population and given special highly-managed status. Rule 33-3.0083, Florida Adminstrative Code.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robert E. Banks v. Jones, 197 So. 3d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…Norris v. Dep’t of Corrections, 721 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Taylor v. Perrin, 654 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Guess v. Barton, 599 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Roy v. Dugger, 592 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Thompson v. Dugger, 509 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); see also Holland v. State, 791 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Id. at 658.3 Since Kendrick, we have continued to recognize our consistent holding that an inmate'challenging close management status may do so through habeas cor…1 / 5
-
Kendrick v. McNEIL, 6 So. 3d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…Norris v. Dep’t of Corrections, 721 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Taylor v. Perrin, 654 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Guess v. Barton, 599 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Roy v. Dugger, 592 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Thompson v. Dugger, 509 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); see also Holland v. State, 791 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). No filing fee may be assessed in a true habeas corpus proceeding. See Art. I, § 13, Fla. Const.; Bocharski v. Circuit Court of Second Judicial Circuit, 552 So. 2d 9…
-
Robert E. Banks v. Jones, 232 So. 3d 963 (Fla. 2017)…Management housing assignments may be asserted by petition for writ of habeas corpus.” Banks, 197 So. 3d at 1155 (citing Magwood v. Tucker, 98 So. 3d 725 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Kendrick v. McNeil, 6 So. 3d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Thompson v. Dugger, 509 So. 2d 391, 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)). The First District certified conflict with Holland.2 Banks sought review in this Court, which we granted. MOOTNESS The Department argues that because Banks has been released from close management and transferred to a fa…
Authorities Cited
- Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (U.S. 1983)
- Bean v. R.L. Dugger and T.N. Bigham, 475 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)