×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Fifth Circuit Reinstates Texas Prisoners’ Challenge to Extended Lockdown
Fifth Circuit Reinstates Texas Prisoners' Challenge to Extended Lockdown
by Michael Rigby
The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated a prisoner lawsuit challenging the Texas Department of Criminal Justice's practice of indefinite segregation without due process.
C. Joseph Salazar and Johnny Maldonado are Texas prisoners who have been confined in administrative segregation (ad seg) for more than 15 years based on alleged gang affiliation. The pair sued TDCJ, pro se, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming its review procedures violated their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. Specifically, the prisoners contended the procedures were a "sham" and that the State Classification Committee (SCC) had no power to release them from segregation. In May 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed their suit as frivolous and for failure to state a claim.
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded to the district court for reconsideration in light of Wilkinson v. Austin, 125 S.Ct. 2384 (2005), which was decided in June 2005 following the dismissal.
In Wilkinson, a class of prisoners confined for indefinite periods in Ohio's supermax prison contended that inadequate review procedures violated their constitutional right to due process. The Wilkinson court concluded, first, that prisoners have a liberty interest in avoiding placement in supermax, and second, that Ohio's new review procedures (implemented on the eve of trial) met due process standards by providing for a review within 30 days of initial placement in supermax, and a three-tiered review process with authority vested at each level to overturn placement recommendations.
Salazar and Maldonado made similar claims. Like those in Ohio's supermax, Texas prisoners confined in ad seg are deprived of virtually all human contact and mental stimuli. They are housed alone and remain in their cells 23 hours a day; they have no access to educational, vocational or other rehabilitative programs and they are provided with only limited access to legal materials, visitation and other privileges.
What's more, Texas prisoners placed in ad seg for gang affiliation are reviewed just once a year, and, because they are deemed "confirmed" members of a security threat group, the SCC has only one option: to continue confinement in ad seg. Consequently, Salazar and Maldonado argued that the process is devoid of any meaning or substance because the SCC lacked authority to release them.
Salazar was recently readmitted to the general population through the TDCJ's gang renunciation program -- currently the only way to be released from ad seg. Maldonado remains in segregation. The prisoners plan to seek class action certification and ask any interested parties to visit their web site at www.brokenchains.us and click on the "Living on the Edge" link. See: Salazar v. Dretke, 184 Fed.Appx. 418 (5th Cir. 2006) (unpublished).
by Michael Rigby
The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated a prisoner lawsuit challenging the Texas Department of Criminal Justice's practice of indefinite segregation without due process.
C. Joseph Salazar and Johnny Maldonado are Texas prisoners who have been confined in administrative segregation (ad seg) for more than 15 years based on alleged gang affiliation. The pair sued TDCJ, pro se, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming its review procedures violated their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. Specifically, the prisoners contended the procedures were a "sham" and that the State Classification Committee (SCC) had no power to release them from segregation. In May 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed their suit as frivolous and for failure to state a claim.
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded to the district court for reconsideration in light of Wilkinson v. Austin, 125 S.Ct. 2384 (2005), which was decided in June 2005 following the dismissal.
In Wilkinson, a class of prisoners confined for indefinite periods in Ohio's supermax prison contended that inadequate review procedures violated their constitutional right to due process. The Wilkinson court concluded, first, that prisoners have a liberty interest in avoiding placement in supermax, and second, that Ohio's new review procedures (implemented on the eve of trial) met due process standards by providing for a review within 30 days of initial placement in supermax, and a three-tiered review process with authority vested at each level to overturn placement recommendations.
Salazar and Maldonado made similar claims. Like those in Ohio's supermax, Texas prisoners confined in ad seg are deprived of virtually all human contact and mental stimuli. They are housed alone and remain in their cells 23 hours a day; they have no access to educational, vocational or other rehabilitative programs and they are provided with only limited access to legal materials, visitation and other privileges.
What's more, Texas prisoners placed in ad seg for gang affiliation are reviewed just once a year, and, because they are deemed "confirmed" members of a security threat group, the SCC has only one option: to continue confinement in ad seg. Consequently, Salazar and Maldonado argued that the process is devoid of any meaning or substance because the SCC lacked authority to release them.
Salazar was recently readmitted to the general population through the TDCJ's gang renunciation program -- currently the only way to be released from ad seg. Maldonado remains in segregation. The prisoners plan to seek class action certification and ask any interested parties to visit their web site at www.brokenchains.us and click on the "Living on the Edge" link. See: Salazar v. Dretke, 184 Fed.Appx. 418 (5th Cir. 2006) (unpublished).
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
Salazar v. Dretke
| Year | 2006 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 184 Fed.Appx. 418 (5th Cir. 2006) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
C. JOSEPH SALAZAR, II, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; JOHNNY MALDONADO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus DOUG DRETKE, Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division; KENNETH W. LEE, Program Administrator STGMO - Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-20527 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
184 Fed. Appx. 418
June 8, 2006, Filed
NOTICE: [**1] RULES OF THE FIFTH 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.
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. USDC No. 4:05-CV-152.
CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff prisoners appeal the dismissal by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas of their 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 action challenging their indefinite detention in administrative segregation.
OUTCOME: The judgment was vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
COUNSEL: C. JOSEPH SALAZAR, II, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division Ramsey I Unit, Rosharon, TX.
JOHNNY MALDONADO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division Hughes Unit, Gatesville, TX.
JUDGES: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
[*418] PER CURIAM: *
FOOTNOTES
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
[*419] C. Joseph Salazar, II, Texas prisoner # 412334, and Johnny [**2] Maldonado, Texas prisoner # 483291, appeal the district court's dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging their indefinite detention in administrative segregation. The plaintiffs' claims were dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). This court reviews such a dismissal de novo. Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir. 1998).
Salazar and Maldonado contend that under Supreme Court and circuit precedent, they sufficiently alleged nonfrivolous claims that they have been held in administrative segregation for over 15 years and that the scheduled review procedures were a "sham" in which the State Classification Committee lacked the authority to remove them from administrative segregation. A Supreme Court case decided after the district court issued its opinion may affect the analysis of a prisoner's due process claims relating to indefinite detention based on initial classification. See Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 125 S. Ct. 2384, 2393-95, 162 L. Ed. 2d 174 (2005). However, it is not clear on the record before us whether Salazar [**3] and Maldonado were placed in administrative segregation based on an initial classification of gang membership or whether it resulted from prison disciplinary proceedings. See, e.g., Wilkerson v. Stalder, 329 F.3d 431, 433 (5th Cir. 2003). As the plaintiffs note, they were not given an opportunity to amend their complaint before the district court dismissed the case. In light of the Supreme Court precedent that the district court could not have considered before issuing its opinion, the judgment of the district court is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings.
No. 05-20527 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
184 Fed. Appx. 418
June 8, 2006, Filed
NOTICE: [**1] RULES OF THE FIFTH 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.
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. USDC No. 4:05-CV-152.
CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff prisoners appeal the dismissal by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas of their 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 action challenging their indefinite detention in administrative segregation.
OUTCOME: The judgment was vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
COUNSEL: C. JOSEPH SALAZAR, II, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division Ramsey I Unit, Rosharon, TX.
JOHNNY MALDONADO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division Hughes Unit, Gatesville, TX.
JUDGES: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
[*418] PER CURIAM: *
FOOTNOTES
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
[*419] C. Joseph Salazar, II, Texas prisoner # 412334, and Johnny [**2] Maldonado, Texas prisoner # 483291, appeal the district court's dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging their indefinite detention in administrative segregation. The plaintiffs' claims were dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). This court reviews such a dismissal de novo. Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir. 1998).
Salazar and Maldonado contend that under Supreme Court and circuit precedent, they sufficiently alleged nonfrivolous claims that they have been held in administrative segregation for over 15 years and that the scheduled review procedures were a "sham" in which the State Classification Committee lacked the authority to remove them from administrative segregation. A Supreme Court case decided after the district court issued its opinion may affect the analysis of a prisoner's due process claims relating to indefinite detention based on initial classification. See Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 125 S. Ct. 2384, 2393-95, 162 L. Ed. 2d 174 (2005). However, it is not clear on the record before us whether Salazar [**3] and Maldonado were placed in administrative segregation based on an initial classification of gang membership or whether it resulted from prison disciplinary proceedings. See, e.g., Wilkerson v. Stalder, 329 F.3d 431, 433 (5th Cir. 2003). As the plaintiffs note, they were not given an opportunity to amend their complaint before the district court dismissed the case. In light of the Supreme Court precedent that the district court could not have considered before issuing its opinion, the judgment of the district court is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings.