Abstract

Comment: Constitutional Law
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded in Haygood v. Younger that prisoners have a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 where the state fails to provide a hearing before utilizing established policies or procedures to deprive prisoners of major liberty interests. In Parratt v. Taylor, the United States Supreme Court held that meaningful postdeprivation remedies in state courts preclude section 1983 actions for the negligent, random and unauthorized deprivation of property by state officials. Parratt's underlying premise is that the state cannot provide hearings prior to deprivations that are unforeseeable. The Supreme Court held in Logan v. Zimmerman that this premise did not apply where the state utilized predictable internal policies or procedures to deprive individuals of property interests. In such cases the due process clause requires a hearing before the state may deprive the individual of the protected interest.

The Haygood court found that the state's internal procedures and policies had deprived Haygood of a major liberty interest. Consequently, the court rejected the Parratt rationale and held that Logan required a hearing before this deprivation took place. The state's failure to do so gave rise to a cause of action under section 1983. This Comment examines the reasoning of Haygood v. Younger and analyzes the decision's potential impact on the scope of due process available to state prisoners.

How to Cite