Leavitt v. Carter
178 So. 3d 334
Miss. Ct. App.2012Background
- Appellants are inmates at EMCF; RVRs issued for allegedly trading canteen items for Marsh's meal trays.
- Hearing officer allegedly marked Appellants as guilty before hearing; they claim no chance to present evidence or witnesses.
- ARPs were pursued; Leavitt’s ARP process completed with eligibility for judicial review; Applewhite and Holiday did not exhaust ARP.
- Circuit court dismissed as frivolous and based on MTCA immunity; court affirmed as to Applewhite and Holiday.
- Geographically, EMCF is privately operated; MTCA immunity debate centers on whether private contractors are immune.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies | Leavitt exhausted ARP; Applewhite and Holiday did not complete ARP. | Applewhite and Holiday failed to exhaust remedies; lack of jurisdiction. | Applewhite and Holiday lacking exhaustion; no jurisdiction to review their claims. |
| MTCA immunity applicability to private prisons | MTCA immunity not applicable because EMCF is privately operated by Geo Group. | MTCA immunity applies to state employees; not applicable to private contractor clearly; MDOC defense not pleaded. | MTCA immunity does not apply to Geo Group and its employees; circuit erred in invoking MTCA immunity. |
| Constitutional due process at disciplinary hearing | Hearing officer predicated guilt before hearing; deprived right to present evidence/witnesses. | Due process satisfied; inmate had notice and opportunity; no liberty interest triggered by phone/canteen loss. | Temporary loss of privileges did not trigger due process protections; no actionable due process violation. |
| Statutory due process and remedy structure | MDOC procedures and Edwards require remand if procedures not followed. | No actual procedural violation; Leavitt admitted trading items; Edwards distinguished; remand unnecessary. | No viable statutory due process claim; remand not warranted; no relief warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Petrie, 41 So.3d 724 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (standard for reviewing agency decisions in Mississippi)
- Edwards v. Booker, 796 So.2d 991 (Miss. 2001) (statutory due process framework for MDOC procedures)
- McKenzie v. State, 66 So.3d 1274 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (exhaustion prerequisite for court jurisdiction)
- Hodges v. Scully, 141 A.D.2d 729, 529 N.Y.S.2d 832 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988) (predetermination of guilt violates procedural rights)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1995) (due process limits on liberty interests in prison discipline)
- Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (U.S. 2005) (state-created liberty interests focus on harshness, not regulations)
- Terrell v. State, 573 So.2d 730 (Miss. 1990) (prison officials' discretion on privileges not constitutional right)
- Tanney v. Boles, 400 F.Supp.2d 1027 (E.D. Mich. 2005) (loss of telephone privileges not a protected liberty interest)
- Edwards v. Vincent Edwards, 795 So.2d 963 (Miss. 1999) (remand when administrative procedures not followed)
- Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (U.S. 1976) (prison administrators' discretionary decisions generally not subject to due process)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (U.S. 1988) (due process prerequisite for §1983 claim requires constitutional rights)
- Clincy v. Atwood, 65 So.3d 327 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (supervisory liability for prison officials)
- Taylor v. Sparkman, 77 So.3d 1133 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (addressing ARP merits)