Purdie v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs.
292 Neb. 524
| Neb. | 2016Background
- Keith D. Purdie, an inmate at Tecumseh State Correctional Institution, applied to be reclassified from medium to minimum custody; the unit administrator denied the request.
- Purdie appealed to the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) Director’s Review Committee; the committee denied his appeal.
- Purdie filed a pro se petition in Lancaster County District Court seeking judicial review under the Nebraska Administrative Procedure Act (APA), claiming the decision was a "contested case."
- DCS moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; the district court held the custody classification was not a "contested case" under the APA and dismissed the petition.
- The Nebraska Court of Appeals dismissed Purdie’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction; the Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review and affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCS custody classification was a "contested case" under the APA | Purdie argued the classification was a contested case entitling him to APA review | DCS argued no law or constitutional right required an agency hearing for custody classification; not a contested case | Held: Not a contested case; no statutory/constitutional right to an agency hearing for custody level |
| Whether the presence of a contested case is jurisdictional under the APA | Purdie asserted APA provided jurisdiction because he was aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case | DCS maintained absence of contested case means no APA jurisdiction | Held: Presence of a contested case is a jurisdictional prerequisite for APA review |
| Whether prior case law creates a protected due-process interest in custody level | Purdie implied entitlement to review of custodial decisions | DCS pointed to precedent rejecting an inherent due-process right to classification downgrades | Held: Inmates have no inherent due-process right to custody downgrades; no hearing required (Abdullah/Sandin principles) |
| Whether appellate court could reach merits after lower court dismissal for lack of jurisdiction | Purdie appealed district court dismissal | DCS argued appellate court lacked jurisdiction if district court lacked it | Held: Appellate court lacked power to decide merits and properly dismissed the appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Abdullah v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs., 246 Neb. 109 (1994) (prisoners have no inherent due-process right to custody downgrades; no entitlement to hearing)
- Kaplan v. McClurg, 271 Neb. 101 (2006) (statute must require a hearing for a proceeding to be a "contested case" under the APA)
- Dittrich v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs., 248 Neb. 818 (1995) (certain disciplinary actions statutorily made subject to APA review)
- Big John's Billiards v. Balka, 254 Neb. 528 (1998) (finality and contested-case status are prerequisites for district court jurisdiction under the APA)