315 Conn. 231
Conn.2014Background
- Frank Vandever, serving sentences including murder and an earlier escape, was transferred to administrative segregation at Northern Correctional Institution after possession of an NIJ publication on perimeter security was discovered in 1997.
- Following a disciplinary hearing he was found guilty of contraband (later withdrawn/expunged) and lost 90 days of statutory good time; an administrative segregation classification hearing was held thereafter.
- A hearing officer recommended increased security classification but not administrative segregation; the Inmate Classification Administrator overruled and ordered administrative segregation. Vandever spent ~570 days in administrative segregation and became ineligible to earn statutory good time and 7‑day work credits while segregated.
- Vandever filed habeas petitions claiming the administrative segregation placement was improper and sought restoration of credits as a remedy for an alleged due process violation. The habeas court denied relief, reasoning Vandever had no right to the credits (they were discretionary). The Appellate Court dismissed his appeal, concluding Connecticut inmates have no protected liberty interest in a particular classification.
- The Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification, concluded the Appellate Court was wrong to hold that Connecticut law precludes any liberty interest in avoiding administrative segregation, but held that even assuming Vandever had such an interest, he received the process due and the placement was supported by at least some evidence. The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court and directed it to affirm the habeas court’s denial of habeas relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Connecticut inmates can have a liberty interest in avoiding administrative segregation | Vandever: Sandin/Wilkinson create a possible state‑created liberty interest when mandatory procedures apply and confinement is atypical and significant | Commissioner: Connecticut grants classification discretion; as a matter of law no liberty interest exists | Ct: Appellate Ct was wrong to hold no liberty interest can ever exist under Connecticut law; Sandin/Wilkinson apply |
| Whether Vandever was entitled to due process before transfer to Northern | Vandever: Placement relied on an expunged disciplinary report and prior conduct for which segregation was already served; thus process was inadequate | Commissioner: Vandever received notice and a full hearing; placement need only be supported by some evidence | Ct: Even assuming a liberty interest, Vandever received the process due (notice, hearing, opportunity to present witnesses) and decision was supported by some evidence |
| Whether the habeas court properly denied restoration of good‑time/work credits as remedy | Vandever sought credits as remedy for due process violation | Commissioner: Awarding such credits is discretionary and not a constitutional entitlement | Ct: Habeas court misstated Vandever’s claim (he sought credits as remedy), but substantive denial of habeas petition was correct because no due process violation occurred |
| Standard of review for administrative segregation placement | Vandever: Placement must meet Sandin atypicality and be supported by more than speculation | Commissioner: Where liberty interest exists, Hewitt/Sandin require informal review and Superintendent v. Hill requires only "some evidence" | Ct: Applies Hewitt for process (informal, timely review) and Superintendent v. Hill "some evidence" standard to substantive support; both were satisfied here |
Key Cases Cited
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (established "atypical and significant hardship" test for state‑created liberty interests)
- Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (recognized liberty interest where state procedures and atypical harsh conditions exist)
- Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 ("some evidence" standard required to support confinement decisions)
- Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (procedural due process for administrative segregation: informal, nonadversary review and opportunity to submit statement)
- Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (prison transfer/classification decisions largely for prison administrators to predict and manage security)
- Colon v. Howard, 215 F.3d 227 (2d Cir.) (administrative segregation durations can bear on atypicality analysis)