Montanye v. Haymes

PETITIONER: Montanye
RESPONDENT: Haymes
LOCATION: Federal Power Commission

DOCKET NO.: 74-520
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1975-1981)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

CITATION: 427 US 236 (1976)
ARGUED: Apr 21, 1976
DECIDED: Jun 25, 1976

ADVOCATES:
Alvin J. Bronstein - for respondent
Joel Lewittes - for petitioners

Facts of the case

Stephen Haymes, the detainee at the Attica correctional Facility located in New York, was discharged from his appointment on clerk position in the law library. At the afternoon, he organized the signing of the petition by 82 prisoners, aimed to complain that everyone was deprived of the legal aid that was resulted from Haymes removal from the jail library.

The next day Haymes was informed that he would be appointed to the high-security Clinton Correctional Facility. The following day he was driven out with no time loss, discriminative confinement, deprivations of privileges or other guarantees.

Haymes brought a claim before the District Court against Montanye, the Superintendent of Attica. The appellant argued that the seizure and confinement of his petition infringed his rights on the confident application to the court under the Administrative Bulletin №20 and right on the appellation (for redress of grievances). He also claimed that his discharge from the Attica was planned to restrict him from performing his legal assistance for detainees. The plaintiff claimed that prison authority infringed his guarantee in accordance with the Fourteen Amendment on the new the hearing if the detainee was moved to another incarceration establishment.

The case Montanye v Haymes was handed out to the Supreme Court of the USA. The Court stated that the Fourth Amendment didn`t establish the mandatory new process if the detainee was relocated into another jail not depending on that such relocation was caused by the detainee`s misconduct or as the disciplinary penalty. The judges also confirmed that the New York legislation did not provide any right for the prisoner to serve a sentence just in one prison unless he would be guilt for some misbehavior. The case study explains it that the person was not imposed to sentence in some particular jail but was subjected to the confinement under the state jurisdiction.

The case brief underlines that the Commissioner was entitled to order the relocation of the prisoners.

Question

Media for Montanye v. Haymes

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - April 21, 1976 in Montanye v. Haymes

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - June 25, 1976 in Montanye v. Haymes

Warren E. Burger:

The judgments and opinion of the Court in 74-520, Montanye against Haymes, and 75-252, Meachum against Fano will be announced by Mr. Justice White.

Byron R. White:

These two cases raise a common question.

In the Fano case which is here from the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Fano was a state prisoner in a medium security institution.

He was transferred to a maximum security prison.

In Haymes, which is here on petition to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the prisoner was transferred from one medium security prison to another.

In each case the inmate brought suit, claiming that the transfer violated his right to liberty under the Due Process Clause and that he was therefore entitled to more procedural due process than he had received in connection with his transfer.

Both Courts of Appeals agreed to the inmate and ordered the transfer canceled.

We reverse both judgments, since in our view no cognizable rights to liberty of either inmate were violated by the transfer.

Our reasons are given at greater length in the opinions on file with the clerk.

Mr. Justice Stevens has filed a dissenting opinion in these cases.

He has been joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall.

Warren E. Burger:

Thank you, Mr. Justice White.