Robert E. Banks v. Julie L. Jones, Secretary, etc.
2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 10604
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Petitioner, serving a 30-year sentence, was disciplined for spitting in a psychiatrist’s face; DOC revoked gain-time and reassigned him to Close Management I (CM I).
- Close Management is an administrative prison classification that segregates inmates from general population with varying restrictions and periodic internal review by institutional and state classification officers.
- Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in the circuit court claiming a due-process liberty interest in remaining in general population; the circuit court denied relief for lack of a protected liberty interest.
- The First DCA granted en banc review to address whether inmates may challenge Close Management placement by habeas corpus, given intervening U.S. Supreme Court doctrine (Sandin).
- The majority receded from prior First DCA precedent allowing habeas review, holding such claims do not implicate a constitutional liberty interest and thus must proceed by mandamus in Leon County to challenge DOC’s compliance with its own rules.
- The opinion affirms denial of relief on the merits (petitioner admitted the conduct), certifies conflict with the Fifth DCA, and notes dissenting and concurring views arguing the change eliminates meaningful review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether assignment to Close Management implicates a constitutionally protected liberty interest triggering due process (habeas) | Petitioner: Close Management imposes atypical and significant hardships; due process requires habeas review. | DOC/Majority: Sandin controls; Close Management is within expected sentence incidents and does not create a federal/state liberty interest. | Held: No liberty interest; habeas not available to challenge CM placement absent Eighth Amendment claim; mandamus is proper vehicle for DOC-rule compliance challenges. |
| Proper procedural vehicle and venue for review of Close Management placement | Petitioner: Habeas in county of confinement is proper to seek release to general population. | DOC/Majority: Such claims are administrative appeals—seek mandamus in Leon County (DOC HQ) to compel compliance with rules. | Held: Mandamus in Second Circuit (Leon County) for rule-compliance claims; certiorari is available for appellate review. |
| Standard of judicial review for DOC classification decisions | Petitioner: DOC must satisfy due-process protections if liberty interest exists. | DOC/Majority: Courts must defer; review limited to arbitrary/unsupported decisions (mandamus standard). | Held: Circuit court may only overturn CM assignment if DOC acted arbitrarily or failed to follow its procedures; "some evidence" suffices to sustain disciplinary basis. |
| Effect of Sandin and stare decisis on prior First DCA precedent allowing habeas challenges | Petitioner: Prior precedent should stand; state may recognize broader liberty interests; Sandin does not eliminate state-level review. | Majority: Prior decisions relied on Hewitt and are inconsistent with Sandin; recede from those decisions. | Held: Court recedes from prior First DCA holdings that allowed habeas for CM placement; certified conflict with Fifth DCA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (U.S. 1983) (pre-Sandin precedent treating certain prison regulations as creating liberty interests)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1995) (liberty interests arise only when conditions impose an atypical and significant hardship)
- Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (U.S. 2005) (indefinite placement in supermax can implicate liberty interests)
- Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (U.S. 1985) ("some evidence" standard for sustaining prison disciplinary findings)
- Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (U.S. 1976) (transfer to more restrictive prison does not necessarily implicate due process liberty interest)
- Plymel v. Moore, 770 So.2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (mandamus is the proper remedy to review certain administrative prison actions)
- Magwood v. Tucker, 98 So.3d 725 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (prior First DCA decision treating CM challenge as habeas; cited by opinion as receded-from precedent)