The Supreme Court established limited due process rights for prison inmates in Wolff v. McDonnell (1976). Inmates must receive advance written notice of charges and have an opportunity to call witnesses at hearings. However, they do not have rights to counsel or cross-examination. In Sandin v. Conner (1995), the Court ruled that due process is only required for deprivations imposing "atypical and significant hardship." Segregation does not automatically meet this standard. Wilkinson v. Austin (2005) found indefinite segregation does impose such hardship. Prisons must now provide reasons for extending segregation beyond 30 days. Inmates have no right to prison jobs or commissary privileges, which are considered privileges, not rights.

1. Prisoners Due Process
CRJS435-IP3
Name
Class
Date
Professor
Wolff v. McDonnell and Sandin v. Conner
In the case of Wolff v. McDonnell (1976) the Supreme
Court ruled prison inmates should be afforded limited due
process rights involving any disciplinary procedures within the
prison. The prison inmate has limited rights that include
advance written notice of the charge no less than 24 hours
before proceedings, written statement of the evidence; prison

2. inmate can call witnesses in their defense. The prison inmate,
however, does not have the right to counsel or to cross examine
witnesses. The court also ruled inmates have right to privacy in
the written communication with their counsel.
In Sandin v. Conner (1995) the Supreme Court once again
answered the question concerning liberty interests protected by
the Due Process Clause but only if the prison inmate could show
where the state or federal prison official had violated a specific
due process right. The Supreme Court ruled courts had to focus
on the nature of the deprivation imposed on a prisoner. The
ruling in Sandin changed how courts approach the potential due
process violations. Now courts base their decisions on the
nature of the deprivation does not impose an “atypical and
significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary
incidents of prison life,” the prisoner will not have a liberty
interest in avoiding the deprivation (Cassell, 2010).
In Wolff v. McDonnell the case began when inmates sued
the prison as a group based on several potential due process
violations. When the court ruled prisoners have liberty interests
protected by the Due Process Clause but these liberty and
property interests must be created by state statutes and
regulations (Cassell, 2010). In other words state law is
responsible for outlining the actual due process rights afforded
to the inmate. In the case of Sandin v. Conner the Supreme
Court created a new standard recognizing the prisoner’s right to
due process for a violation of prisoners’ liberty interests if they
experience a significant or atypical deprivation. An atypical
deprivation was defined more clearly in Giano v. Kelly which
includes a significant difference in the length of the isolation,
absence of meaningful activities, and lack of recreational
activities.
In a prison the Warden is the leader and prison staff is in
charge of supervising the inmates. A prison acts as a small,
individual city where rules and regulations are established by
the leadership. Prison discipline is a necessary aspect of every
prison. Without discipline processes in place the prison inmates

3. cannot be properly managed or controlled. A prison is filled
with individual that have chosen to ignore the laws of society
and have been punished for this offense. The prisoner is not
happy about being in prison and will act out violently or with
disregard to prison staff. Even though they must be punished
how they are punished is significant to their due process rights.
Prison discipline is central to the management of
imprisonment; it is also central to a prisoner’s experience of
imprisonment (Naylor, 2002). Prison inmates are subject to the
rules and regulations of the prison and the discipline that is
necessary to ensure inmates understand the consequences of
their actions. Prisons are designed to punish the offender in a
way where they recognize the authority of the prison staff and
any failures to follow the rules will result in immediate
disciplinary actions. The prisoner must be clear of these rules
and regulations.
While the Supreme Court recognizes prisoners can be
punished they cannot by denied certain liberty interests outlined
in Wolff v. McDonnell and Sandin v. Conner. The prison is
required to publish laws outlining all of the prisons rules and
regulations concerning the discipline of the inmate. All
regulations must be clear and when a prisoner violates a rule
resulting in a deprivation of their liberty they must first receive
written notice from the prison. Prisoners cannot be deprived
liberty without first being warned. Written notice will give the
inmate time to prepare a defense against the charges.
Job Loss
Since the ruling in Sandin v. Conner the rights of the
prisoner have become more defined. A lack of the absence of a
meaningful activity refers to the prison failing to keep prisoners
busy with jobs, educational opportunities, and vocational
training. In order for a prison inmate to loss their prison job in
the prison setting they must first violate prison rules. Whether
or not a prison is afforded an opportunity to work while in
prison depends partly on prison polices and state policy. It is a
privilege for prisoners to work in the prison environment not a

4. right but the prison must provide the prisoner with an
opportunity to engage in meaningful activities. In the case of
Wolff v. McDonnell the Supreme Court ruled inmates must be
provided with meaningful activities and recreational activities.
Prisoners are not guaranteed the right to work in the prison
environment unless federal or state explicitly provides for this
right. Federal law does not guaranteed the right to work and in
most cases neither does state law. Instead prisoners earn the
work to work or are made to work in the prison environment
depending on the prison and their policies and state regulation.
For example in a lot of prison inmates are assigned job that will
ensue the functioning of the prison. For example cleaning the
prisons or working in the kitchen.
These jobs come with little pay but are a privilege. Only
trusted inmates, known as trustees, get these positions. Inmates
are also not guaranteed the right to fair wages or even any
wages. The prison does not have to pay the inmate anything for
working and prison inmates cannot refuse to work if they are
not paid. In fact prison inmates can be punished by prison
officials for refusing to work.
In other prisons inmates are made to work in order to ensure
they do not have any time for mischievous. In the past and even
in some prisons today inmates work on what is known as chain
gangs and are forced to work doing hard labor. In other prison
all inmates work and earn pennies on the dollar. The money
made in the prison goes to the prison to house the inmate.
Prisons do not guarantee an inmate the right to work. The prison
inmates have to earn this right. They are instead afforded an
opportunity to get their GED or to seek way to better
themselves and change their criminal behavior.
Scheduled Segregation
Prison inmates that do not follow the procedures and
policies of the prison are subject to disciplinary action. This can
include the inmate losing privileges or being segregated from
other inmates in what is known as prison isolation the goal of
the isolation cell is to give the prisoner time to reflect in their

5. bad behavior. After enough time in isolation the inmate will
learn not to engage in similar behavior in the future. Inmates,
however, cannot be thrown into prison without first being
provided some information about the disciplinary action and
charge against them. In order to be segregated the inmate is first
afforded a disciplinary hearing.
Based on the ruling in Wolff v. McDonnell inmates must be
afforded no less 24 hours notice of a pending disciplinary
hearing. In some states inmates are afforded written notice. The
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
guarantees that people shall not be deprived of liberty without
due process of law (Spector, 2010). Prison inmates, however,
are not afforded the same rights guaranteed in the 14th
amendment as the citizen. In Sandin v. Conner the Supreme
Court ruled that segregation does not automatically apply as a
due process violation. In order for segregation to be considered
a liberty interest it must impose an “atypical and significant
hardship.
The ruling in Sandin v. Conner did not explain what would
constitute atypical and significant hardship. In other words is
one month too long or is it two months that signifies an atypical
and significant hardship. It was not until the ruling in
Wilkinson v. Austin that this become clearer. The Supreme
Court found open ended segregation was in fact an atypical and
significant hardship. Prison inmates were not informed of how
long they would be placed in isolation but instead were placed
in isolation until prison officials deemed they could be released.
The hardship came in not knowing when the punishment would
end and in fact the punishment could go on forever if prison
officials wished.
After the ruling in Wilkinson v. Austin prison are now
required to provide a reason why isolation has been extended
past the thirty day maximum placed on prison segregation.
Prisoners in segregation also cannot be left in their cells for
more than twenty two hours a day. The inmate must be afforded
an opportunity to exercise. Before the inmate can be placed into

6. segregation they have the right to notice in order to plan a
defense or to develop evidence to call witnesses. If n inmate
does not have council they can use substitute council on their
behalf. Substitute council refers to other prison inmates. The
inmate can call witnesses as well as confront witnesses and are
always afforded an impartial hearing.
Loss of Commissary Privileges
When prison inmates fail to follow the rule and procedures
of the prison they face punishment while segregation is one
form of punishment received so is the loss of the prison
inmate’s commissary privileges. Inmates are not afforded the
right to commissary privileges and this is in fact a privilege
inmates can earn in the prison environment. Privileges are not a
right of the prisoner but instead are an award for inmates that
display good behavior.
Prisons are only required to provide inmates with food,
shelter, and medical care. They are not required to ensure the
inmate has access to the treats provided by the commissary.
When inmates are afforded the right to commissary goods they
must use money in their account. Because many inmates do not
get paid the money that is placed in their accounts is from
family members. Prisons are under no obligation to provide a
variety of foods or even to ensure food taste good. They are
only responsible for providing for the inmates basic food needs.
The food they are provided is enough to feed the average inmate
and does not cater to the religious needs of inmates.
Conclusion
Prisons are places for punishment and not a place where the
right s of the inmate are even considered. It is not until rulings
are made in Supreme Court that inmates began to receive a
small amount of liberty interests in the prison environment.
Prisoners are not the same as citizens and are not afforded the
same privileges and civil liberties. The rulings in Wolff v.
McDonnell and Sandin v. Conner the Supreme Court outlined
the privileges afforded the prison inmate concerning their
limited due process rights. After these important ruling inmates

7. are afforded notice of any disciplinary action and are afforded
limited due process rights when they are subject to discipline.
References
Cassell, K. (2010). Due Process in Prison: Protecting Inmates
Property after Sandin v. Conner.
Retrieved June 28, 2013 from
http://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/12/2110_Cassel.pdf
Naylor, B. (2002). Prison Disciplinary Systems: Process and
Proof. Retrieved June 28, 2013
from
http://www.law.monash.edu.au/castancentre/publications/naylor
-prato-prison-paper.pdf
Spector, D. (2010). The Rights of Prisoners in Administrative
Segregation. Retrieved June 28,
2013 from
http://www.prisonlaw.com/pdfs/AdministrativeSegregation,Jun1
0.pdf