# Zeb Gaston v. John B. Taylor, Warden, Samuel Pruett, Assistant Warden, Toni v. Bair, Regional Administrator

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · October 8, 1991 · 946 F.2d 340

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9482150

## Case

- **Full name:** Zeb GASTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John B. TAYLOR, Warden, Samuel Pruett, Assistant Warden, Toni v. Bair, Regional Administrator, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 8, 1991
- **Citations:** 946 F.2d 340; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 23517; 1991 WL 199394
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Butzner
- **Judges:** Ervin, Russell, Widener, Hall, Phillips, Murnaghan, Sprouse, Wilkinson, Wilkins, Niemeyer, Butzner
- **Cited by:** 197 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/9482150

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “changes in a prisoner[’s] location, variations of daily routine, changes in conditions of confinement (including administrative segregation), and the denial of privileges – matters which every prisoner can anticipate are contemplated by his original sentence to p…
- holding that “changes in a prisoners’ [sic] location, variations of daily routine, changes in conditions of confinement (including administrative segregation), and the denial of privileges—matters which every prisoner can anticipate are contemplated by his original sentence to…
- recognizing that to safely and efficiently run the prison, prison officials maintain broad discretion over an inmate’s “location, variations of daily routines, changes in conditions of confinement (including administrative segregation), and the denial of privileges”
- concluding that to safely and efficiently run the prison, prison officials maintain broad discretion over an inmate's “location, variations of daily routines, changes in conditions of confinement (including administrative segregation), and the denial of privileges”
- recognizing that an imprisoned defendant "loses a significant interest in his liberty for the period of his sentence" and that confinement can be extended beyond the original sentence "only with procedures satis:fyi.ng due process"

## Opinion text

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge,
with whom Circuit Judge MURNAGHAN and Circuit Judge SPROUSE join, dissenting:
I fully subscribe to the following principle of constitutional law: “A substantial liberty from legal restraint is at stake when the State makes decisions regarding parole or probation.” Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 U.S. 1, 18 , 99 S.Ct. 2100, 2109 , 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979) (Powell, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Indeed, we have previously decided that Virginia prisoners have a liberty interest entitling them to the minimum requirements of procedural due process in parole release proceedings. Franklin v. Shields, 569 F.2d 784, 800 (4th Cir.1978) (en banc). Criteria adopted by the Virginia Parole Board guiding its parole decisions included “the prisoner’s institutional experience.” Franklin, 569 F.2d at 791 -92 n. 29. On remand it should not be difficult to determine whether a prisoner’s possession of contraband is a factor that the parole board would typically consider.
For reasons adequately stated in the panel opinion in Gaston v. Taylor, 918 F.2d 25 (4th Cir.1990), I would vacate the summary judgment granted by the district court and remand for further proceedings.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9482150. Public record. Not legal advice.