holding that transfer to administrative segregation as punishment for a specific rule infraction under Tennessee prison policies entitles a prisoner to notice, a hearing, a deliberative decision and a general statement of reasons as required in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974)
How later courts described this case
- holding that transfer to administrative segregation as punishment for a specific rule infraction under Tennessee prison policies entitles a prisoner to notice, a hearing, a deliberative decision and a general statement of reasons as required in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974)
- noting that deviations from state- created procedural rules do not necessarily amount to due process violations
- holding that a liberty interest was established by a prison rule contained in an "Adult Service Policies and Procedure Manual of the Department of Corrections (Guidelines)"
- holding that "procedural rules created by administrative bodies cannot, of themselves, serve as a basis for a separate protected liberty interest"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
EDWARDS, Chief Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur in and join the majority opinion as to all sections except Section III. I cannot agree with the rejection of plaintiffs’ claims to procedural rights based on state prison regulations (see Guidelines, Rule 4.601(4)). I believe that these rules do establish a “legitimate claim of entitlement” and may not, as here, be arbitrarily disregarded. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 226 , 96 S.Ct. 2532, 2539 (1976); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 558 , 94 S.Ct. 2693 , 2975 (1974).