{ "id": 8155684, "name": "James MUNSON v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT of CORRECTION", "name_abbreviation": "Munson v. Arkansas Department of Correction", "decision_date": "2009-02-12", "docket_number": "07-1037", "first_page": "549", "last_page": "553", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "375 Ark. 549" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "294 S.W.3d 409" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "231 S.W.3d 725", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.3d", "case_ids": [ 3655009, 3285543 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "per curiam" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/366/0404-01", "/ark/365/0579-01" ] }, { "cite": "366 Ark. 404", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 3655009 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "per curiam" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/366/0404-01" ] }, { "cite": "418 U.S. 539", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6173832 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/418/0539-01" ] }, { "cite": "515 U.S. 472", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1563880 ], "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/515/0472-01" ] }, { "cite": "100 F.3d 640", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 11938962 ], "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/100/0640-01" ] }, { "cite": "356 Ark. 460", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 5367597 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/356/0460-01" ] }, { "cite": "354 Ark. 414", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 36068 ], "weight": 4, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "418" }, { "page": "157" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/354/0414-01" ] }, { "cite": "306 Ark. 554", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1900919 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/306/0554-01" ] }, { "cite": "341 Ark. 901", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1257734 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/341/0901-01" ] }, { "cite": "155 S.W.3d 2", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.3d", "case_ids": [ 6141193, 5367829 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/85/0382-01", "/ark/356/0382-01" ] }, { "cite": "356 Ark. 382", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 5367829 ], "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/356/0382-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 372, "char_count": 6017, "ocr_confidence": 0.797, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.20092175258094197 }, "sha256": "26e57dc1fecb216c5567311f033f31f9ddbe6dad8680408ea9bf1342c06545b1", "simhash": "1:7a84b18c4be1d165", "word_count": 984 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:36:16.941269+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Brown, J., not participating." ], "parties": [ "James MUNSON v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT of CORRECTION" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Per Curiam.\nAppellant James Munson, an inmate incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction (\u201cADC\u201d), filed a petition in Pulaski County Circuit Court for judicial review under Arkansas Code Annotated \u00a7 25-15-212 (Repl. 2002) to challenge a disciplinary action against him by the appellee ADC. Appellee moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The circuit court granted the motion and appellant has lodged an appeal of that order in this court.\nAppellant argues on appeal that the court erred in dismissing the petition, that his petition stated a claim for violation of due process, and that the ADC did not follow its own procedures. In his petition, appellant alleged that, as a result of appellee\u2019s failure to follow its procedures, he had lost class status and certain privileges, and was subjected to isolation for a period of time. Appellant further alleged that the disciplinary action resulted from an ADC officer\u2019s failure to act and that the other inmate involved was not subjected to disciplinary action.\nIn reviewing the circuit court\u2019s decision on the motion to dismiss, we treat the facts alleged in the complaint as true and view them in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. Rhuland v. Fahr, 356 Ark. 382, 155 S.W.3d 2 (2004). In testing the sufficiency of a complaint on a motion to dismiss, all reasonable inferences must be resolved in favor of the complaint, and all pleadings are to be liberally construed. Id. A trial judge must look only to the allegations in the complaint to decide a motion to dismiss. Fuqua v. Flowers, 341 Ark. 901, 20 S.W.3d 388 (2000).\nHere, the appellee first argues that we should affirm dismissal of the petition by the circuit court because judicial review was not available to appellant as an inmate. Appellee urges us to overrule our decision in Clinton v. Bonds, 306 Ark. 554, 816 S.W.2d 169 (1991), holding that Act 709 of 1989, amending the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act by excluding prison inmates from judicial review of administrative adjudications, unconstitutionally deprives inmates of review of constitutional questions. This court does not lightly overrule cases and applies a strong presumption in favor of the validity of prior decisions. Echols v. State, 354 Ark. 414, 125 S.W.3d 153 (2003). It is necessary to uphold prior decisions unless a great injury or injustice would result. Id. at 418, 125 S.W.3d at 157. The court only breaks with precedent when the result is patently wrong and so manifestly unjust that a break becomes unavoidable. State v. Brown, 356 Ark. 460, 156 S.W.3d 722 (2004).\nHere, it is not necessary to consider whether our holding in Clinton v. Bonds is still valid, because it is evident that appellant\u2019s petition did not raise a constitutional question so as to permit judicial review. Appellee also contends that the ADC\u2019s disposition of the matter here did not constitute an order for purposes of section 25-15-212, and, as appellant\u2019s petition did not raise a constitutional question, we agree that it did not.\nAppellant contends that his right to due process was violated because the ADC did not follow its own procedures and that issue was raised in his petition. He essentially claims a liberty interest in having the ADC officials follow the procedures. But, appellant does not have a liberty interest in the actual procedures to be administered. See Kennedy v. Blankenship, 100 F.3d 640 (8th Cir. 1996).\nNor can appellant show a substantive due process violation as a result of the sanctions that were imposed by the ADC in the proceeding. To state a case for a substantive due process violation, appellant must have shown an atypical and substantive deprivation that was a dramatic departure from the basic conditions of his confinement. Id.; Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). Appellant\u2019s petition did not set forth any conditions resulting from the proceedings that would show such an atypical and substantive deprivation.\nAppellant\u2019s petition alleged the sanctions imposed resulted in a loss of class status and certain privileges, and that he was subjected to isolation for a period of time. Under Kennedy v. Blankenship, claims of segregation from the general prison population do not indicate a dramatic departure from the basic conditions of appellant\u2019s confinement. In Arkansas, there is no liberty interest in good time under the analysis in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). McKinnon v. Norris, 366 Ark. 404, 231 S.W.3d 725 (2006) (per curiam). A loss of class status and privileges such as appellant cited, even if impacting good time, would not compromise a liberty interest.\nAppellant\u2019s petition for review did not state that sanctions were imposed that were sufficient to compromise a liberty interest, and unless such sanctions may be imposed, the ADC\u2019s disciplinary proceedings did not invoke due process so as to mandate notice and hearing. Appellant\u2019s petition did not, therefore, show that the ADC\u2019s disposition of the matter did conform to the requirements of the definition of \u201corder\u201d in Arkansas Code Annotated \u00a7 25-15-202(5) (Supp. 2007). The proceedings did not therefore result in an order for purposes of judicial review under section 25-15-212.\nConsidering the facts alleged in the petition as true and viewing those facts in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, appellant failed to allege facts that would support a claim for judicial review under the statute. He did not allege that the ADC imposed sanctions sufficient to raise a liberty interest or due process, and without such a liberty interest at stake, the ADC\u2019s actions did not constitute an order subject to judicial review.\nAffirmed.\nBrown, J., not participating.", "type": "majority", "author": "Per Curiam." } ], "attorneys": [ "James Munson, pro se.", "Dustin McDaniel, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Reme Ford Hudson, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "James MUNSON v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT of CORRECTION\n07-1037\n294 S.W.3d 409\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered February 12, 2009\nJames Munson, pro se.\nDustin McDaniel, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Reme Ford Hudson, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0549-01", "first_page_order": 579, "last_page_order": 583 }