Baity v. Palmer

Background

Carl Lee Baity, a former California state prisoner, brought this civil-rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law allowing claims against state officials for violations of federal rights. Baity alleged that J. Palmer, M. Botello, and C. Koenig violated his Fourteenth Amendment due-process rights by failing to restore time credits and holding him in prison for 12 days longer than they should have. Baity represented himself and did not oppose the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, even after receiving notice of the consequences of failing to respond.

The Court’s Analysis

The court explained that summary judgment is proper when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court also noted that an unopposed motion cannot be granted solely because the opposing party did not respond; the moving party’s evidence must independently support the motion.

Baity began serving a one-year-and-four-month sentence on September 27, 2018. His earliest possible release date, assuming he earned all available good-conduct credits, was May 4, 2019. After Baity fought another inmate on January 4, 2019, he lost 90 days of good-conduct credits, moving his earliest possible release date to August 2, 2019.

Baity became eligible to regain the credits on April 8, 2019, after remaining free of disciplinary violations for 90 days. Under the prison regulation then in effect, however, restored credits could not move his earliest possible release date to a date less than 60 days after restoration. Restoring all 90 credits therefore moved his date to June 7, 2019. A regulation effective May 1, 2019, allowed officials to release within 15 days an inmate whose restored credits made the inmate eligible for release. Officials released Baity on May 16, 2019.

The court held that Baity’s release date did not violate due process because he was released on the earliest date allowed by the applicable regulations. The court also found that Baity received the procedural protections due process requires: notice of the changes to his release date and an opportunity to raise his concerns at a term-computation hearing. Although Baity did not request that hearing, it was available to him. He also used the prison’s administrative appeals process, where prison officials explained why the regulations required his release on May 16, 2019.

Disposition

Judge William Alsup granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court found no triable issue concerning whether Baity’s release date complied with state law or whether he received the procedures required by due process. The clerk was ordered to enter judgment and close the file.