Lawny Lamar Browning v. Richard A. Vernon, Director Ron McKinsey

Good Law
44 F.3d 818·95 Daily Journal DAR 435·1995 WL 6383·1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 296·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 259
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 10, 199594-35136California2,692 words

Opinion

Opinion

Beezer, J.

Defendants, Richard Vernon and Ron McKinsey, appeal the district court’s denial of their motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs, a class of inmates in the North Idaho Correctional Institution, filed this action alleging due process violations in the administration of Idaho’s retained jurisdiction program. Vernon and McKinsey contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity from damages because the allegations in the complaint do not constitute violations of a clearly established liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (3) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Pelletier v. Federal Home Loan Bank, 968 F.2d 865, 869 (9th Cir.1992). We affirm.

I

A group of several hundred inmates (“Inmates”) at the North Idaho Correctional Institution (“NICI”) filed this class action seek ing declaratory relief, injunctive relief and punitive damages for violations of their due process rights in connection with the retained jurisdiction program (the “Rider Program”). The inmates sued the administrators of the Rider Program, Richard Vernon, Director of the Idaho Department of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.