Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Altizer v. Paderick

569 F.2d 812

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1978-01-25
Topic
litigation

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that federal due process constraints are not implicated because the classification of a State prison inmate is a matter of State prison officials’ discretion
  • stating that classification and work assignments are matters of prison administrative discretion and are not matters entitled to due process hearings
  • holding custody classifications and work assignments are generally within the discretion of the prison administrator
  • holding prisoners do not have constitutionally protected right to work while incarcerated, or to remain in a particular job once assigned.
  • “[T]he classifications and work assignments of prisoners . . . are matters of prison administration, within the discretion of the prison administrators. . . .”
  • “[T]he classifications and work assignments of prisoners in such institutions are matters of prison administration, within the discretion of the prison administrators, and do not require fact-finding hearings as a prerequisite for the exercise of such discretion.
  • work assignments are generally within the discretion of the prison administrator
  • work assignments are at prison officials’ discretion

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Altizer v. Paderick. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
70 opinions
ALTIZER v. PADERICK,569 F.2d 812(4th Cir. 1978)
FRANK ERVIN ALTIZER, JR., APPELLANT, v. E. L. PADERICK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
SUPERINTENDENT, VIRGINIA STATE PENITENTIARY, ETC., W. M. RIDDLE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT, VIRGINIA STATE PENITENTIARY,
ETC., D. R. LAWSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CORRECTIONS OFFICER, VIRGINIA STATE
PENITENTIARY, ETC., H. L. CAMPBELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CORRECTIONS OFFICER,
VIRGINIA STATE PENITENTIARY, ETC., AND CORRECTIONS OFFICER STOUFER,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CORRECTIONS OFFICER, VIRGINIA STATE PENITENTIARY, ETC.,
APPELLEES.
No. 76-2182.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued October 4, 1977.
Decided January 25, 1978.
Tracy Dunham, Richmond, Va. (Carolyn J. Colville, Colville Dunham, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellant.

Patrick A. O'Hare, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va. (Anthony F. Troy, Atty. Gen. of Virginia, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Before RUSSELL, WIDENER and HALL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] The appellant a state prisoner, complains that his removal as an inmate counselor by the prison officials, without a fact finding hearing, was violative of his due process rights. The district court dismissed his action and we affirm.

[2] It is well settled that federal courts do not occupy "the role of super wardens of state penal institutions" (Cooper v. Riddle(4th Cir. 1976)540 F.2d 731,732), and "do not sit to supervise state prisons" (Meachum v. Fano(1976)427 U.S. 215,229,96 S.Ct. 2532,2540,49 L.Ed.2d 451). InPage 813particular, the classifications and work assignments of prisoners in such institutions are matters of prison administration, within the discretion of the prison administrators, and do not require fact-finding hearings as a prerequisite for the exercise of such discretion.Cooper v. Riddle, supra; Chapman v. Plageman(W.D.Va. 1976)417 F. Supp. 906,908. To hold that they are "within reach of the procedural protections of the Due Process Clause would place the Clause astride the day-to-day functioning of state prisons and involve the judiciary in issues and discretionary decisions that are not the business of federal judges."Meachum v. Fano,427 U.S. at 228-29,96 S.Ct. at 2540. It follows that the appellant was not denied any constitutional right by the action of the prison administrators in removing him, without a hearing, from assignment to the inmate advisor program. Nor was the appellant entitled to a due process hearing because the prison officials included in his file the reasons for his transfer from the inmate advisor program, even though such information might have some implications for any later right to parole on his part.See, Meachum v. Fano, supra,at 229, note 8,96 S.Ct. at 2540;1Lay v. WilliamsandScott v.Williams,___ U.S. ___,98 S.Ct. 311,54 L.Ed.2d 196.

[3] The judgment of the district court is accordingly

[4] AFFIRMED.
  1. Note 8:
    "Nor do we think the situation is substantially different because a record will be made of the transfer and the reasons which underlay it, thus perhaps affecting the future conditions of confinement, including the possibilities of parole. The granting of parole has itself not yet been deemed a function to which due process requirements are applicable. SeeScott v. Kentucky Parole Board,No. 74-6438, cert. granted 1975,423 U.S. 1031, [96 S.Ct. 561,46 L.Ed.2d 404.] If such holding eventuates, it will be time enough to consider respondents' contentions that there is unfounded information contained in their files."
    ↩