Toevs v. Reid
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12446
10th Cir.2011Background
- Toevs challenged the Quality of Life Level Program (QLLP) in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit alleging due process violations during extended administrative segregation (2005–2009).
- QLLP is a six-level stratified program; Levels 1–3 are administrative segregation with periodic reviews under AR 600-02, Levels 4–6 are close custody with no formal review process.
- Toevs progressed through Levels 1–6, ultimately graduating in January 2009 after years in confinement; his placement began in 2002 following an escape attempt and regressions occurred for behavior problems.
- Plaintiffs alleged that some case managers (Glidewell, Moore) failed to provide meaningful periodic reviews and that wardens (Reid, Jones) enforcing OM 650-100 rendered reviews effectively meaningless.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, concluding reviews were constitutionally adequate; the Tenth Circuit disagreed and remanded for analysis under qualified immunity.
- The panel ultimately affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding qualified immunity applied because the law on meaningful periodic reviews in a stratified program had not been clearly established at the relevant time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of a liberty interest from prolonged QLLP confinement | Toevs contends prolonged QLLP confinement without meaningful reviews created a liberty interest. | Reid/Jones/Moore argue no liberty interest was implicated beyond state law; reviews were adequate. | Toevs established a liberty interest due to indefinite confinement and atypical hardship. |
| Meaningfulness of periodic reviews (Levels 1–3) | Reviews lacked reasons and progress guidance; failed to inform of how to graduate. | Reviews tracked progress but omitted explicit reasons for stagnation. | Reviews at Levels 1–3 were not meaningful due to missing explanations guiding future behavior. |
| Meaningfulness of reviews (Levels 4–6) | No reviews were conducted at Levels 4–6. | Close custody levels require no reviews, per Defs., or none existed. | Failure to conduct any reviews at Levels 4–6 violated Hewitt’s review requirement. |
| Qualified immunity applicability | Defendants should be liable because clearly established law required meaningful reviews. | No clearly established law in 2005–2009 clearly prohibited the process used here. | Defendants entitled to qualified immunity; law not clearly established at the time. |
| Appointment of counsel on appeal | Lack of counsel prejudiced Toevs in framing arguments and discovery. | Toevs litigated capably; appointing counsel not an abuse of discretion. | No abuse of discretion; decision affirmed on the merits, not counsel issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hewitt v. Helms, 459 F.3d 460 (U.S. Supreme Court 1983) (periodic review required for administrative segregation; review must be meaningful)
- Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (U.S. Supreme Court 2005) (meaningful review and substantial hardship considerations in confinement cases)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. Supreme Court 1995) (liberty interests in prison confinement; atypical and significant hardship analysis)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. Supreme Court 1976) (procedural safeguards balancing values for due process)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (U.S. Supreme Court 2002) (clearly established rights and fair warning standard for immunity)