# Wendell Bills v. Murray Henderson

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · November 13, 1980 · 631 F.2d 1287

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9467152

## Case

- **Full name:** Wendell BILLS Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Murray HENDERSON Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** November 13, 1980
- **Citations:** 631 F.2d 1287
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Edwards
- **Judges:** Edwards, Weick, Kennedy
- **Cited by:** 158 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9467152

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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…
- 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"
- holding "every deviation from state procedures cannot be viewed as a federal constitutional violation", id. at 1299, and citing Mabey as contrary authority

## Opinion text

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).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9467152. Public record. Not legal advice.