Munson v. Ark. Dep't of Corr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
07-1037
Opinion Delivered
February 12, 2009
PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, CV
2007-2273, HON. JAMES M. MOODY,
JR., JUDGE
JAMES MUNSON
Appellant
v.
AFFIRMED.
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION
Appellee
PER CURIAM
Appellant James Munson, an inmate incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction
(“ADC”), filed a petition in Pulaski County Circuit Court for judicial review under Arkansas Code
Annotated § 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.
Appellant 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’s 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’s failure to act and that the
other inmate involved was not subjected to disciplinary action.
In reviewing the circuit court’s 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).
Here, 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 Procedures 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).
Here, it is not necessary to consider whether our holding in Clinton v. Bonds is still valid,
because it is evident that appellant’s petition did not raise a constitutional question so as to permit
judicial review. Appellee also contends that the ADC’s disposition of the matter here did not
constitute an order for purposes of section 25-15-212, and, as appellant’s petition did not raise a
constitutional question, we agree that it did not.
-2-
Appellant 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).
Nor 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’s petition did not set forth any conditions resulting from the proceedings that would show
such an atypical and substantive deprivation.
Appellant’s 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’s 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.
Appellant’s 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’s disciplinary
proceedings did not invoke due process so as to mandate notice and hearing. Appellant’s petition
did not, therefore, show that the ADC’s disposition of the matter did conform to the requirements
-3-
of the definition of “order” in Arkansas Code Annotated § 25-15-202(5) (Supp. 2007). The
proceedings did not therefore result in an order for purposes of judicial review under section 25-15212.
Considering 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’s actions did not
constitute an order subject to judicial review.
Affirmed.
Brown, J., not participating.
-4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.