Chaney

MEMORANDUM *

Samantha G. Chaney, Ryan L. Tatt, Brendalyn D. Marshall, and Joshua J. Bradford (“Class Plaintiffs”), a class of individuals who are, were, or will be incarcerated by the Washington State Department of Corrections (“DOC”) beyond the first date they were or would be eligible for release into community custody, appeal from the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Joseph D. Lehman, the former Secretary of the DOC, after concluding that the action was barred under qualified immunity. We affirm.

The Class Plaintiffs argue that release into community custody on the first eligible release time (“ERT”) date is a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, they assert that Lehman violated their due process rights by not affording the Class Plaintiffs hearings after denying them release into community custody on their ERT dates. The Class Plaintiffs also argue that prisoners subject to post-release supervision have a constitutional liberty interest in amassing good time credits.

“There is no constitutional or inherent right of a convicted person to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid…

dissenting:

I dissent.

*711 For the most part, plaintiffs’ counsel has failed to provide sufficient evidence to sustain a due process claim. The bulk of the declarations submitted as evidence fail to explain why the inmates were or are being kept in prison past them earned release date (“ERD”). These declarations do not indicate that the individuals in question ever submitted a release plan, much less one that met the required criteria for release into community custody. Class Plaintiff Michael Elder’s declaration — one of only two in the record that describes the circumstances giving rise to the delayed release — indicates that his belated release was, at least in part, his own fault, as the majority describes. Cf. In re Crowder, 97 Wash.App. 598 , 985 P.2d 944, 946 (1999) (finding no due process violation where the delay in releasing inmate into community custody was the result of “legitimate reasons,” including inmate’s withdrawal of a suggested release plan). Such vague declarations cannot carry the due process claim against a summary judgment by the defendant.

It is equally clear, however, that one named class plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence of a due process…