Waller v. Banks, 2013 Ark. 399

Waller, a pro se inmate, sued VARNER ADC officials under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act alleging due process and equal protection violations from his placement in the VSM Incentive Level Program.
Placement followed a prior 2009 hearing and a Placement Review, after which Waller reportedly received notice and had fifteen days to appeal; no formal appeal of the placement appears in the record.
Waller had previously stabbed a correctional officer in 2009; EARU classified him and recommended VSM placement, with temporary administrative segregation during transfer.
The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and failure to state a claim; on appeal, Waller challenged exhaustion and asserted constitutional rights violations.
The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding no legitimate constitutional question was raised and that there was no deprivation of a liberty interest to trigger due-process protections.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exhaustion required for constitutional claims is satisfied	Waller exhausted remedies via grievances on placement.	Exhaustion not necessary where no legitimate constitutional question is raised.	Exhaustion not required where no constitutional liberty interest is implicated.
Whether due process was violated by lack of notice/hearing before VSM placement	Assignment without notice/hearing violates due process.	Program did not deprive liberty; no need for notice/hearing beyond program rules.	No due-process violation; placement did not involve a protected liberty interest.
Whether equal protection was violated by the VSM Program's application or absence for females	Male inmates receive incentives not available to female inmates; disparate treatment.	Inmates are not similarly situated; distinctions are relevant to rehabilitation goals.	No equal-protection violation; classification supported by legitimate, rehabilitation-related rationale.
Whether the VSM Incentive Level Program constitutes an unlawful mental-health program under Ark. Code Ann. § 12-29-405	Program is a mental-health treatment subject to § 12-29-405.	Record does not show the program is treatment for mental illness.	Not shown to be a mental-health treatment under § 12-29-405; no violation proven.

Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (U.S. 1980) (behavior modification not automatically a liberty interest; safeguards depend on context)
Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1995) (no liberty interest in administrative segregation absent atypical, significant deprivation)
Dukes v. Norris, 369 Ark. 511, 256 S.W.3d 483 (2007) (equal-protection scrutiny requires similarly situated analysis; not every disparity violates)
Clonce v. Richardson, 379 F. Supp. 338 (W.D. Mo. 1974) (major changes in conditions of confinement can trigger due-process concerns)
Canterino v. Wilson, 546 F. Supp. 174 (W.D. Ky. 1982) (equal-protection arguments may be considered but later developments affect weight)