926 F.3d 610
10th Cir.2019Background
- Homaidan Al-Turki, a Saudi citizen incarcerated in Colorado, applied to transfer to a Saudi prison under an international treaty that requires concurrence of the sentencing state, the receiving state, and the prisoner.
- Colorado’s CDOC and its executive director (and the governor) have discretion to approve or deny transfers; CDOC regulation states transfer is a "privilege and not a right."
- CDOC executive director Tom Clements initially signed a letter approving Al-Turki’s transfer (Jan. 14, 2013) but later reversed and denied the transfer (March 2013).
- Al-Turki alleges state and federal officials (prosecutor, DA, FBI agents/counsel) supplied false, derogatory information that caused Clements to rescind approval, and that he received no name‑clearing hearing before the reversal.
- He sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming a procedural due‑process violation (seeking injunctive relief to obtain a hearing to clear his name); defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
- The district court dismissed; the Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding Al‑Turki failed to plead the required ‘‘stigma‑plus’’ showing because he did not allege a change in legal status protected by state law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alleged defamatory statements by officials required a name‑clearing hearing under the Due Process Clause (stigma‑plus) | Al‑Turki: false, stigmatizing statements caused CDOC to revoke approval; reputation‑plus entitles him to a hearing to clear his name | Defendants: reputation harm alone is insufficient; no alteration of a state‑recognized legal status occurred | Held: Dismissed — stigma alone insufficient; Al‑Turki failed to plead the necessary ‘‘plus’’ (no significant alteration in legal status) |
| Whether an inmate has a constitutional liberty interest in transfer to a particular foreign prison | Al‑Turki: approval letter created status of being approved for state‑level transfer | Defendants: no constitutional right to confinement in particular institution; transfer is discretionary under state regulation | Held: No due‑process liberty interest in transfer location under Sandin/Meachum; approval letter conferred no protected legal entitlement |
| Whether CDOC’s procedural or paperwork rules created an enforceable entitlement once the executive director signed approval | Al‑Turki: regulation’s procedural step (forwarding packet upon approval) created a mandatory duty and thus a state‑recognized status | Defendants: regulation explicitly makes transfer discretionary; paperwork provision does not strip discretion | Held: Even construing the regulation for Al‑Turki, the approval remained contingent and not the sort of substantive, significant change in legal status required by Paul |
| Whether the requested remedy (name‑clearing hearing) would be meaningful if state approval could not be rescinded | Al‑Turki: hearing needed to refute false claims that led to rescission | Defendants: if signature created final entitlement, a hearing would be pointless; otherwise no entitlement existed | Held: Court notes a paradox — if approval were binding, a hearing would be unnecessary; here rescission was within discretion, so no due‑process right to a hearing existed |
Key Cases Cited
- Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (reputation alone not liberty or property for due‑process purposes)
- Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (no constitutional right to incarceration in a particular institution)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (prisoner liberty interest only where restraint imposes atypical and significant hardship)
- Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (protected liberty interest where conditions are atypical and especially harsh)
- Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (name‑clearing hearing remedy when defamation plus altered legal status established)
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (examples of governmental action depriving recognized rights under state law)
- Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (liberty interest where mandatory state language creates entitlement)
- Constantineau v. Wisconsin, 400 U.S. 433 (example of defamation plus loss of state‑recognized right)
- Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226 (limits of stigma‑plus where statements not incident to deprivation of employment)
- Gwinn v. Awmiller, 354 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. — reputational damage alone insufficient for due‑process)
- Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. v. Kansas Dep’t of Transp., 810 F.3d 1161 (procedural‑due‑process two‑step inquiry)