BOP Visit Rules Do Not Create Liberty Interest; Spouse May Sign Documents
on Behalf of a Spouse


The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the Federal
Bureau of Prisons (BOP) visitation procedures do not create a liberty
interest, and that a pro se spouse may sign documents for the other
spouse. The complaint in the district court demonstrated that the female
plaintiff gained employment as a Career Resource Coordinator with the BOP
in Marianna, Florida. She was assigned to the Education Department as a
clerk for a prisoner. She subsequently resigned her position and sought
permission to visit the prisoner, which was granted.

During her second visit a guard terminated the visit for suspicion
of passing contraband to the prisoner. The warden then removed her from
the prisoner's visitation list because BOP policy required visitors to
have a relationship with the prisoner prior to incarceration. During the
investigation of the incident the prisoner was placed in dry-cell status
and later in administrative confinement. After release, he failed to file
an administrative remedy challenging his treatment.

Later, the prisoner was transferred to a BOP facility in Jesup,
Georgia where visitation privileges were again denied because the female
was a former BOP employee, and her knowledge of security procedures
allegedly posed a threat to the security and orderly running of the
prison. She then changed her name and was placed on the prisoner's visit
list. Upon trying to visit, a guard recognized her and terminated the
visit. The prisoner was given a disciplinary report for misleading
officials about the female's identity, resulting in loss of thirty days
good time and suspension of visitation privileges with the female for two
years. At some point, the two were married.

Prison officials argued the former employee was not properly a
party to the appeal because she did not file a notice of appeal. The
Court held that Fed.R.App.P. 3(c) allows a party to sign a notice of
appeal on behalf of a spouse, and extended the rule to allow a pro se
party to sign documents such as objections and briefs on behalf of a
spouse unless a manifest injustice would result.

The district court stayed discovery pending resolution of the
officials' qualified immunity defense, and then granted relief based on
that defense. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed this procedure. [PLN notes
that as the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, this holding is incorrect
because qualified immunity does not apply to such relief]. The appellate
court then held that prisoners do not have an absolute right to
visitation, and that the BOP's visitation regulations do not create a
liberty interest because they are discretionary. The court found the
reasoning for denying visitation to a former prison employee constituted a
legitimate penological interest.

The appeals court affirmed the grant of summary judgment on all
issues except relating to the claim challenging the prisoner's
administrative confinement at Jesup, which it held must be addressed on
the merits because administrative remedies were exhausted. See: Caballo-
Sandoval and Carballo v. Honsted, 35 F.3d 521 (11th Cir. 1994).

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case