|Sponsors:||Illinois Institute for Community Law
Illinois Legal Aid Online
|Date:||Tuesday, May 31, 2005|
|Time:||11:00 AM - 11:30 AM|
|Speakers:||James P. Chapman, Illinois Institute for Community Law
James P. Chapman discusses various issues surrounding what process is due prisoners by examining, among other things, transfers into punitive segregation and transfers to supermax facilities. Mr. Chapman also discusses the leading Sandin decision and other critical cases pending in the U.S. Supreme Court.
*Since this video was made, there have been significant legal developments which may impact this subject.
The United States Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit have stated that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to remain in one institution over another, as "prisoners possess neither liberty nor property [interests] in their classifications and prison assignments. States may move their charges to any prison in the system." DeTomaso v. McGinnis, 970 F.2d 211, 212 (7th Cir. 1992) (citing Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236 (1976)). See also Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224 (1976) (the Constitution does not guarantee placement in a particular prison).
The exception to this rule is that if the transfer is to a prison which imposes restrictions which are “atypical and significantly more restrictive” than those usually found in prison, then the prisoner has a right to a hearing. See Sandin v. Conner 515 U.S. 472 (1995) and Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (2005). To date, this exception has been applied to transfers to supermax prisons (in Illinois, this means Tamms Correctional Center). See Westefer v. Snyder, Civil No. 00-162-GPM (S.D. Ill. decided July 20, 2010). However, if conditions are bad enough, the same ruling might apply to transfers to other prisons.
Last Updated: 06/09/2005
Printed from: www.illinoislegaladvocate.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.dsp_Content&contentID=3916
We welcome your comments and suggestions