×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Supreme Court Rulings Trickle Down: WA Good Time
In the February, 1996, issue of PLN we reported Gotcher v. Wood, 66 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 1995) where the ninth circuit held that Washington prisoners have a protected liberty interest in their good time credits. The supreme court vacated Gotcher at 117 S.Ct. 1840 (1997) [PLN, July, 1997]. On remand, the ninth circuit ruled, in its entirety:
"The court has reconsidered its holding in Gotcher..., in light of Edwards v. Balisok, 117 S.Ct. 1584 (1997). We agree with Wood that Edwards forecloses Gotcher's entire compensatory claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because we do not reach the issue of whether Gotcher has a protectable liberty interest in receiving good time credits or remaining free of disciplinary segregation, we deny Gotcher's request to republish parts of our earlier decision. The district court's dismissal of Gotcher's claim is AFFIRMED." See: Gotcher v. Wood, 122 F.3d 39 (9th Cir. 1997).
In effect this ruling leaves Gotcher with no remedy for his claim that his good time credits were illegally seized as he has been out of prison for several years, having spent an additional 30 days in prison as a result of the disciplinary hearing he challenged. This ruling leaves open the question of whether Washington prisoners have a due process liberty interest in their good time credits. Plaintiffs arguing this issue in future cases should urge the court to adopt the reasoning in the now vacated, and thus not binding, ruling at 66 F.3d 1097.
"The court has reconsidered its holding in Gotcher..., in light of Edwards v. Balisok, 117 S.Ct. 1584 (1997). We agree with Wood that Edwards forecloses Gotcher's entire compensatory claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because we do not reach the issue of whether Gotcher has a protectable liberty interest in receiving good time credits or remaining free of disciplinary segregation, we deny Gotcher's request to republish parts of our earlier decision. The district court's dismissal of Gotcher's claim is AFFIRMED." See: Gotcher v. Wood, 122 F.3d 39 (9th Cir. 1997).
In effect this ruling leaves Gotcher with no remedy for his claim that his good time credits were illegally seized as he has been out of prison for several years, having spent an additional 30 days in prison as a result of the disciplinary hearing he challenged. This ruling leaves open the question of whether Washington prisoners have a due process liberty interest in their good time credits. Plaintiffs arguing this issue in future cases should urge the court to adopt the reasoning in the now vacated, and thus not binding, ruling at 66 F.3d 1097.
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
Gotcher v. Wood
| Year | 1997 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 122 F.3d 39 (9th Cir. 1997) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gotcher v. Wood, 122 F.3d 39 (9th Cir. 09/11/1997)
[Editor's note: footnotes (if any) trail the opinion]
FOR PUBLICATION
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[2] NORMAN GOTCHER, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
[3] TANA WOOD, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
[4] No. 94-35484
[5] D.C. No. CV-93-00120-FVS
[6] ORDER
[7] On Remand from the United States Supreme Court
[8] Filed September 11, 1997
[9] Before: Robert R. Beezer and Michael Daly Hawkins, Circuit Judges, and Dickran M. Tevrizian, *fn* District Judge.
[10] COUNSEL
[11] John Midgley and David C. Fathi, Columbia Legal Services, Seattle, Washington, for the plaintiff-appellant.
[12] Talis M. Abolins, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Justice Division, Olympia, Washington, for the defendantsappellees.
[13] ORDER
[14] The Court has reconsidered its holding in Gotcher v. Wood, 66 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 1995), in light of Edwards v. Balisok, 65 U.S.L.W. 4359 (May 19, 1997). We agree with Wood that Edwards forecloses Gotcher's entire compensatory claim under 42 U.S.C. S 1983. Because we do not reach the issue of whether Gotcher has a protectable liberty interest in receiving good-time credits or remaining free of disciplinary segregation, we deny Gotcher's request to republish parts of our earlier decision. The district court's dismissal of Gotcher's claim is AFFIRMED.
***** BEGIN FOOTNOTE(S) HERE *****
[15] *fn*The Honorable Dickran M. Tevrizian, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
***** END FOOTNOTE(S) HERE *****
[Editor's note: Illustrations from the original opinion, if any, are available in the print version]
19970911
122 F.3d 39, 1997.C09.1499
Gotcher v. Wood, 122 F.3d 39 (9th Cir. 09/11/1997)
[Editor's note: footnotes (if any) trail the opinion]
FOR PUBLICATION
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[2] NORMAN GOTCHER, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
[3] TANA WOOD, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
[4] No. 94-35484
[5] D.C. No. CV-93-00120-FVS
[6] ORDER
[7] On Remand from the United States Supreme Court
[8] Filed September 11, 1997
[9] Before: Robert R. Beezer and Michael Daly Hawkins, Circuit Judges, and Dickran M. Tevrizian, *fn* District Judge.
[10] COUNSEL
[11] John Midgley and David C. Fathi, Columbia Legal Services, Seattle, Washington, for the plaintiff-appellant.
[12] Talis M. Abolins, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Justice Division, Olympia, Washington, for the defendantsappellees.
[13] ORDER
[14] The Court has reconsidered its holding in Gotcher v. Wood, 66 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 1995), in light of Edwards v. Balisok, 65 U.S.L.W. 4359 (May 19, 1997). We agree with Wood that Edwards forecloses Gotcher's entire compensatory claim under 42 U.S.C. S 1983. Because we do not reach the issue of whether Gotcher has a protectable liberty interest in receiving good-time credits or remaining free of disciplinary segregation, we deny Gotcher's request to republish parts of our earlier decision. The district court's dismissal of Gotcher's claim is AFFIRMED.
***** BEGIN FOOTNOTE(S) HERE *****
[15] *fn*The Honorable Dickran M. Tevrizian, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
***** END FOOTNOTE(S) HERE *****
[Editor's note: Illustrations from the original opinion, if any, are available in the print version]
19970911
122 F.3d 39, 1997.C09.1499