Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12 views

    Christopher Shifrin v. Larry Fields, and State of Oklahoma, 39 F.3d 1112, 10th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    An Oklahoma inmate brought a Section 1983 civil rights action arguing that his exclusion from earning emergency time credits for prison overcrowding under Oklahoma law violated his constitutional rights. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The appellate court affirmed, finding that excluding violent or repeat offenders from earning credits was rationally related to legitimate penological interests and did not violate equal protection, due process, or the Eighth Amendment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Christopher Shifrin v. Larry Fields, and State of Oklahoma, 39 F.3d 1112, 10th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    12 views3 pages
    An Oklahoma inmate brought a Section 1983 civil rights action arguing that his exclusion from earning emergency time credits for prison overcrowding under Oklahoma law violated his constitutional rights. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The appellate court affirmed, finding that excluding violent or repeat offenders from earning credits was rationally related to legitimate penological interests and did not violate equal protection, due process, or the Eighth Amendment.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1994-11-04 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 39 F.3d 1112 Docket: 94-6073

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    An Oklahoma inmate brought a Section 1983 civil rights action arguing that his exclusion from earning emergency time credits for prison overcrowding under Oklahoma law violated his constitutional rights. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The appellate court affirmed, finding that excluding violent or repeat offenders from earning credits was rationally related to legitimate penological interests and did not violate equal protection, due process, or the Eighth Amendment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    12 views3 pages

    Christopher Shifrin v. Larry Fields, and State of Oklahoma, 39 F.3d 1112, 10th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    An Oklahoma inmate brought a Section 1983 civil rights action arguing that his exclusion from earning emergency time credits for prison overcrowding under Oklahoma law violated his constitutional rights. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The appellate court affirmed, finding that excluding violent or repeat offenders from earning credits was rationally related to legitimate penological interests and did not violate equal protection, due process, or the Eighth Amendment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    39 F.

    3d 1112

    Christopher SHIFRIN, Plaintiff-Appellant,


    v.
    Larry FIELDS, and State of Oklahoma, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 94-6073.

    United States Court of Appeals,


    Tenth Circuit.
    Nov. 4, 1994.

    Christopher Shifrin, pro se.


    Susan B. Loving, Atty. Gen. of Oklahoma, and Karin M. Kriz, Asst. Atty.
    Gen., Oklahoma City, OK, for defendants-appellees.
    Before TACHA, BRORBY, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.
    EBEL, Circuit Judge.

    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination
    of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
    ordered submitted without oral argument.

    Plaintiff-Appellant Christopher Shifrin ("Appellant"), an Oklahoma state


    inmate, brought this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for
    declaratory and injunctive relief. Appellant argues that because he is ineligible
    for the sentence credits provided in the Oklahoma Prison Overcrowding
    Emergency Powers Act, Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 57, Secs. 570-576 (West 1991 &
    Supp.1994) ("the Act"), enforcement of the Act violates his equal protection
    and due process rights by excluding him from the group benefitted from the
    Act, and violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution by
    forcing him to remain incarcerated in overcrowded prison conditions. The
    district court adopted the magistrate's recommendation and dismissed
    Appellant's complaint on Appellee's motion for summary judgment.1 Appellant
    challenges that decision, and we AFFIRM.

    We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal
    standard used by the district court under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Applied Genetics
    Int'l, Inc. v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 912 F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir.1990).
    Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Appellant, the party opposing
    the motion, we find no error in the district court's conclusion that no genuine
    dispute over a material fact exists, and that Appellees are entitled to judgment
    as a matter of law.2 See id.

    The Act at issue provides that whenever the Oklahoma prison population
    exceeds ninety-five percent of capacity for more than thirty days, all inmates
    who are not classified above a medium security level, not incarcerated for a
    violent offense, and not incarcerated for a "second or subsequent offense,"
    receive sixty days credit towards their sentences. Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 57, Secs.
    572-573. Because Appellant is a subsequent offender incarcerated for a violent
    offense, he is ineligible for these emergency time credits.

    The district court correctly determined that Appellant failed to make a viable
    argument that excluding inmates from emergency time credits because of their
    status as violent or repeat offenders violates the Equal Protection Clause, the
    Due Process Clause, or the Eighth Amendment. First, the magistrate's
    recommendation properly concluded that violent or repeat offenders are not a
    suspect class; that the Act must therefore bear only a rational relationship to a
    legitimate state interest to withstand equal protection review; and that the Act is
    indeed rationally related to legitimate penological concerns.3 Keeton v.
    Oklahoma, 32 F.3d 451 (10th Cir.1994).

    Second, the magistrate's recommendation also properly determined that


    Appellant, whose ineligibility under the Act was never in dispute, has no
    constitutionally protected liberty interest in shortening his sentence through
    emergency time credits.4 Cf. Shirley v. Chestnut, 603 F.2d 805, 807 (10th
    Cir.1979) (finding no protected liberty interest when state statute creates
    possibility of parole). Thus, Appellant has no viable claim to any specific due
    process procedures.

    Lastly, the magistrate judge correctly rejected Appellant's assertion that


    remaining in overcrowded prison conditions without the benefit of emergency
    time credits constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.5 Absent allegations of
    "deliberate indifference" by prison officials and of a "specific deprivation" of a
    "human need," an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison conditions must
    fail. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 303-05, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 2326-27, 115
    L.Ed.2d 271 (1991).

    Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court for the reasons set
    forth more fully in the magistrate's recommendation, which the district court
    adopted in full.

    The mandate shall issue forthwith.

    The district court also accepted the magistrate's recommendation to deny


    Appellant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. We now grant
    Appellant's renewed request to proceed in forma pauperis, pursuant to 28
    U.S.C. Sec. 1915(a)

    Appellant also contends that the district court improperly denied his requests
    for discovery and an evidentiary hearing. Because we conclude that the district
    court properly dismissed Appellant's complaint as a matter of law on summary
    judgment, we also conclude that the district court did not commit error by
    denying Appellant these requests

    We note that in a series of unpublished dispositions, the Tenth Circuit has


    already rejected similar equal protection claims by other Oklahoma inmates
    who are also ineligible for the Act's emergency time credits. E.g., Aaron v.
    Fields, No. 94-6143, 1994 WL 548928, at * 1-2, 37 F.3d 1509 (10th Cir. Oct. 7,
    1994) (unpublished disposition); Wilkinson v. Fields, 30 F.3d 142 (10th
    Cir.1994); Brennan v. Fields, 30 F.3d 141 (10th Cir.1994) (unpublished
    disposition); Martin v. State of Oklahoma, 21 F.3d 1121 (10th Cir.1994)
    (unpublished disposition); Day v. Reynolds, 21 F.3d 1121 (10th Cir.1994)
    (unpublished disposition)

    We note that in an unpublished disposition the Tenth Circuit has already


    rejected a similar due process claim by another Oklahoma inmate who is also
    ineligible for the Act's emergency time credits. Day v. Reynolds, 21 F.3d 1121
    (10th Cir.1994) (unpublished disposition)

    We note that in several unpublished dispositions the Tenth Circuit has already
    rejected similar Eighth Amendment claims by other Oklahoma inmates who
    are also ineligible for the Act's emergency time credits. E.g., Aaron v. Fields,
    No. 94-6143, 1994 WL 548928, at * 2, 37 F.3d 1509 (10th Cir.1994)
    (unpublished disposition); Brennan v. Fields, 30 F.3d 141 (10th Cir.1994)
    (unpublished disposition)

    You might also like