×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
OK Early Release Law Legal
In response to prison overcrowding, the Oklahoma state legislature has passed the Oklahoma Prison Overcrowding Emergency Powers Act, Oklahoma Statute 57, § 570-576. The act permits the prison system to release prisoners with less than medium custody convicted of lesser crimes in order to free up prison space. Timothy Keeton, an Oklahoma state prisoner, filed suit against the state claiming that the statute was unconstitutional because only certain classes of prisoners were eligible for early release.
The district court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim. The court of appeals for the tenth circuit affirmed the dismissal. The court held that because the suit did not claim discrimination due to a suspect classification, i.e. race or gender, it would be examined as to whether it held a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest.
The court held that states have a legitimate interest in reducing prison overcrowding.Iin doing so, the state may release only those prisoners convicted of lesser crimes who may pose less of a threat. "Consequently, since there is no evidence that Appellant is being treated differently than similarly situated prisoners, i.e., prisoners with the same or similar classification, and the Act is constitutional, Appellant has failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted." See: Keeton v. State of Oklahoma, 32 F.3d 451 (10th Cir. 1994).
The district court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim. The court of appeals for the tenth circuit affirmed the dismissal. The court held that because the suit did not claim discrimination due to a suspect classification, i.e. race or gender, it would be examined as to whether it held a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest.
The court held that states have a legitimate interest in reducing prison overcrowding.Iin doing so, the state may release only those prisoners convicted of lesser crimes who may pose less of a threat. "Consequently, since there is no evidence that Appellant is being treated differently than similarly situated prisoners, i.e., prisoners with the same or similar classification, and the Act is constitutional, Appellant has failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted." See: Keeton v. State of Oklahoma, 32 F.3d 451 (10th Cir. 1994).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Keeton v. State of Oklahoma
| Year | 1994 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 32 F.3d 451 (10th Cir. 1994) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
32 F.3D 451
TIMOTHY KEETON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA and LARRY FIELDS, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 94-6011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
32 F.3d 451; 1994 U.S. App.
July 7, 1994, Filed
NOTICE: RULES OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [**1]
The Publication Status of this Document has been Changed by the Court from Unpublished to Published July 28, 1994.
PRIOR HISTORY: (D.C. No. CIV-93-1574-C). (W.D. Okla.)
JUDGES: Before LOGAN, SETH, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.
OPINIONBY: OLIVER SETH
OPINION: [*452] ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of the court's General Order filed November 29, 1993. 151 F.R.D. 470.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore [**2] ordered submitted without oral argument.
Appellant Timothy Keeton, a prisoner in an Oklahoma state prison, filed a pro se civil rights complaint against the Appellees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. The gist of his complaint was that the Oklahoma Prison Overcrowding Emergency Powers Act ("Act"), Okla. Stat. tit. 57, 570-576, unconstitutionally deprives him of his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. After a magistrate issued a report and recommendation and Appellant timely objected, the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
On appeal, Appellant raises essentially the same issues as presented to the district court. We are obliged to liberally construe Appellant's pleadings since he is proceeding pro se. Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1526. Even with liberal construction, we agree with the district court that Appellant's complaint was not a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which would have been denied for failure to exhaust state remedies, but may only be considered as a 1983 action concerning his substantive equal [**3] protection assertions.
Appellant complains that the Act permits the state to release prisoners early in order to alleviate overcrowding problems, but that certain groups of prisoners are not permitted to receive early release under the Act. Since Appellant is not claiming discrimination based on a suspect classification or denial of a fundamental right, the appropriate standard is whether the statute has a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest. San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 36 L. Ed. 2d 16, 93 S. Ct. 1278.
We agree with the district court that the state has a legitimate interest in reducing prison overcrowding in emergency conditions and thereby diminishing the many attendant difficulties related to overcrowding. Furthermore, the state has a legitimate interest in designating that only prisoners who have been convicted of lesser crimes or who are subject to no higher than medium security may be released so as to avoid a greater threat to society at large. Because the Act is written to promote these interests, we find that the Act is rationally related to legitimate state interests. [**4] Consequently, since there is no evidence that Appellant is being treated differently than similarly situated prisoners, i.e., prisoners with the same or similar classification, and the Act is constitutional, Appellant has failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
After carefully reviewing the record, we find the Appellant's other contentions on appeal to be without merit. Accordingly, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Oliver Seth
Circuit Judge
TIMOTHY KEETON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA and LARRY FIELDS, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 94-6011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
32 F.3d 451; 1994 U.S. App.
July 7, 1994, Filed
NOTICE: RULES OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [**1]
The Publication Status of this Document has been Changed by the Court from Unpublished to Published July 28, 1994.
PRIOR HISTORY: (D.C. No. CIV-93-1574-C). (W.D. Okla.)
JUDGES: Before LOGAN, SETH, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.
OPINIONBY: OLIVER SETH
OPINION: [*452] ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of the court's General Order filed November 29, 1993. 151 F.R.D. 470.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore [**2] ordered submitted without oral argument.
Appellant Timothy Keeton, a prisoner in an Oklahoma state prison, filed a pro se civil rights complaint against the Appellees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. The gist of his complaint was that the Oklahoma Prison Overcrowding Emergency Powers Act ("Act"), Okla. Stat. tit. 57, 570-576, unconstitutionally deprives him of his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. After a magistrate issued a report and recommendation and Appellant timely objected, the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
On appeal, Appellant raises essentially the same issues as presented to the district court. We are obliged to liberally construe Appellant's pleadings since he is proceeding pro se. Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1526. Even with liberal construction, we agree with the district court that Appellant's complaint was not a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which would have been denied for failure to exhaust state remedies, but may only be considered as a 1983 action concerning his substantive equal [**3] protection assertions.
Appellant complains that the Act permits the state to release prisoners early in order to alleviate overcrowding problems, but that certain groups of prisoners are not permitted to receive early release under the Act. Since Appellant is not claiming discrimination based on a suspect classification or denial of a fundamental right, the appropriate standard is whether the statute has a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest. San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 36 L. Ed. 2d 16, 93 S. Ct. 1278.
We agree with the district court that the state has a legitimate interest in reducing prison overcrowding in emergency conditions and thereby diminishing the many attendant difficulties related to overcrowding. Furthermore, the state has a legitimate interest in designating that only prisoners who have been convicted of lesser crimes or who are subject to no higher than medium security may be released so as to avoid a greater threat to society at large. Because the Act is written to promote these interests, we find that the Act is rationally related to legitimate state interests. [**4] Consequently, since there is no evidence that Appellant is being treated differently than similarly situated prisoners, i.e., prisoners with the same or similar classification, and the Act is constitutional, Appellant has failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
After carefully reviewing the record, we find the Appellant's other contentions on appeal to be without merit. Accordingly, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Oliver Seth
Circuit Judge