Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

Wilkinson v. Austin

Docket No.: 04-495
Certiorari Granted: Dec 10 2004
Argued: March 30, 2005
Decided: June 13, 2005

Topics:

Due Process, Due Process, EPA, Eighth Amendment, murder

PartyNames: Reginald A. Wilkinson, Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, et al. v. Charles E. Austin, et al.
Petitioner: Reginald A. Wilkinson, Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, et al.
Respondent: Charles E. Austin, et al.

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Citation: 372 F3d 346
Supreme Court Docket

Reginald A. Wilkinson, Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, et al.
v.
Charles E. Austin, et al.
545 U.S. 209 (2005)
Question Presented:

Where state prison officials decide to place a prisoner in a "super-maximum security" facility based on a predictive assessment of the security risk the prisoner presents, but prison regulations create a liberty interest for the prisoner in avoiding such placement, do procedures. meeting the requirements specified in Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (1983), satisfy the prisoner's due process rights?

Question:

Did the placement policies for Ohio's highest security prison violate the 14th Amendment's due process clause?

Wilkinson v. Austin
ORAL ARGUMENT

March 30, 2005

Holding: affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded
Vote: 9-0
Opinion By:
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)