High Court Hears Arguments In Prisoner’s Suit Walla Walla Inmate Says Due Process Violated In 1993 Disciplinary Hearing

The U.S. Supreme Court was asked Wednesday whether a state penitentiary inmate can make a federal case out of his prison disciplinary hearing.

Thomas Rice, a Gonzaga University law professor, told the nation’s highest court that inmate Jerry Balisok has a constitutional right to challenge an allegedly unfair hearing in 1993. Lower courts have agreed.

But Kathleen Mix, a Washington state deputy attorney general, argued a ruling in favor of Balisok could flood the federal courts with frivolous lawsuits. It also could create confusion between state and federal courts, she said.

“The court has struggled (with this) for years,” said Mix, who argued state courts should have precedence over all aspects of disciplinary appeals.

The dispute involves a 1993 disciplinary hearing at the Walla Walla state penitentiary.

Balisok, who was serving 20 years for attempted murder, lost 30 days of good-time credits for threatening and attempting to blackmail another inmate.

He sued, alleging he had not been granted due process because a guard had concealed witnesses’ statements from him.

Although the 14th Amendment protects a citizen’s rights to due process, the Supreme Court previously has ruled that convicts are not allowed to challenge their sentences in federal court before going through state courts.

Justices asked both lawyers whether it would be possible to rule that the procedure was flawed without voiding the penalty Balisok received.

“Doesn’t any such suit imply that the sentence should be overturned?” Justice Antonin Scalia asked Rice. “You can’t complain that somebody committed a procedure that was wrong but didn’t hurt you.”

Rice replied that Balisok isn’t contesting his loss of the good-time credits - he is claiming only that the process was unfair.

But Mix said the convict is reserving his right to challenge the penalty. A Supreme Court decision in his favor could be used to bolster a future case in a state court, she said.

Balisok’s federal claim should be denied under the prior ruling requiring any appeal of his sentence to be made in state court, Mix said.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked Mix whether the question of due process is a separate issue. “He’s saying, ‘I’m not arguing that I’m entitled to that good time. All I’m saying is I want a fair procedure,”’ Ginsburg said.

Justice John Paul Stevens challenged Mix’s contention that federal and state courts would be inundated with similar lawsuits.

“These problems happen only if you lose (at the federal level),” Stevens said. “You’re going to win most of these.”

Rice was appointed to the case in 1994. He, fellow GU professor George Critchlow and law student Kristy Smith-Moffitt worked on the case as part of the university’s Legal Assistance Clinic.

The American Civil Liberties Union and several other groups have joined the case on behalf of Balisok, while 16 other states have filed briefs siding with Washington state.

The court will issue a ruling later this term, which ends in June.

, DataTimes