Alfredo Prieto v. Harold Clarke
780 F.3d 245
| 4th Cir. | 2015Background
- Prieto, a Virginia death-row inmate, was confined at Sussex I State Prison awaiting execution under Virginia's death-row policy.
- Virginia policy mandates death-row housing with no reclassification, single cells, and stricter visitation/recreation limits for death-row inmates.
- Prieto filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming procedural due process and Eighth Amendment violations; district court found a plausible due process claim and ordered relief.
- District court granted Prieto's motion for summary judgment and awarded costs/fees; Virginia officials appealed and the decisions were consolidated.
- Fourth Circuit reversed, holding Prieto cannot show a state-created liberty interest and that the conditions do not constitute an atypical and significant hardship under Sandin/Wilkinson; district court’s injunctions and fees orders were vacated.
- Dissent argues Wilkinson supports a liberty interest and due-process safeguards are required despite Virginia’s policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Prieto has a state-created liberty interest | Prieto; argues due process due to atypical, harsh conditions | Virginia; contends no liberty interest exists as policy forecloses reclassification | No state-created liberty interest; district court erred |
| Whether death-row confinement constitutes an atypical hardship | Prieto; argues conditions are atypical relative to prison life | Virginia policy makes confinement typical for death-row inmates | Harsh conditions exist but not atypical in relation to the statute-constrained baseline; no due-process trigger |
| Whether the absence of reclassification and automatic death-row placement bars due process | Prieto; contends due process requires review rights | Virginia policy expressly disallows reclassification | Policy forecloses due process interest in reclassification; no liberty interest established |
Key Cases Cited
- Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976) (state-created liberty interests require policy; not every adverse condition suffices)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (two-prong test; atypical and significant hardship related to ordinary prison life)
- Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (2005) (two-prong test applied to confinement; focus on conditions relative to prison life)
- Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174 (4th Cir. 2006) (reaffirms Sandin two-prong approach in Fourth Circuit)
- Beverati v. Smith, 120 F.3d 500 (4th Cir. 1997) (baseline for atypicality varies with context; not universal general-prison baseline)
- Burnette v. Fahey, 687 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2012) (affirms need for state-law/policy basis for liberty interests)
- Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 132 S. Ct. 1510 (2012) (recognizes prison-management discretion while acknowledging due-process considerations)
- Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (1980) (recognizes liberty interest in avoiding certain protections, illustrating limits of due process)