USCA1 Opinion
July 5, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 95-1960
No. 95-2018
MARC E. WILDER, II, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION,
JOHN MARSHALL,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Marc E. Wilder, II and Russell J. Carey on brief pro se. __________________ ________________
Nancy Ankers White, Special Assistant Attorney General, and ____________________
Margaret Melville, Counsel, Department of Correction, on brief for __________________
appellees.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Prior to its repeal in 1994, a ___________
Massachusetts statute providing for the award of good-time
credits to state prisoners specifically withheld such credits
from inmates who had been convicted of enumerated sex
offenses. See Mass. Gen. L., ch. 127, 129. Plaintiffs ___
here, a group of prisoners serving sentences for sex crimes,
have brought an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 challenging
this statutory exclusion on various constitutional grounds.1 1
The lower court rejected each of their claims at the summary
judgment stage. On the arguendo assumption that plaintiffs' ________
contentions are cognizable in a civil-rights action (rather
than a habeas corpus proceeding), we summarily affirm for the
reasons recited by the magistrate-judge in his June 23, 1995
report. We add only the following.
Underlying several of plaintiffs' claims is the
assertion that their inability to obtain good-time credits
constitutes a separate "punishment" apart from that incurred
at sentencing. This is mistaken. The statutory exclusion
was enacted in 1965, see Amado v. Superintendent, 366 Mass. ___ _____ ______________
45, 48 (1974) (reviewing statutory history)--long before any
of the plaintiffs had been convicted. Accordingly, their
ineligibility for such credits can only be viewed as part of
____________________
1 Of the more than fifty plaintiffs who joined in the 1
action below, only some fourteen are participating in the
instant appeals. We assume arguendo that each of the ________
appellants has properly invoked this court's jurisdiction.
-2-
the punishment imposed by the sentencing court after trial.
Plaintiffs' assertion that the exclusion constitutes a bill
of attainder fails for this reason (among others). See, ___
e.g., United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 450 (1965). ____ ______________ _____
Their additional claim that the exclusion violates double
jeopardy (a claim which we assume arguendo is properly before ________
us) falters on the same ground. Even if the exclusion were
viewed as a cumulative punishment for the same offense,
double jeopardy would not be offended. See, e.g., United ___ ____ ______
States v. Centeno-Torres, 50 F.3d 84, 85 (1st Cir.) (per ______ ______________
curiam), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 208 (1995). ____________
The allegation that the exclusion violates due process
proves equally unavailing. Plaintiffs possess no liberty
interest in receiving good-time credits. See, e.g., Sandin ___ ____ ______
v. Conner, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 2297 (1995); Riddle v. Mondragon, ______ ______ _________
83 F.3d 1197, 1206-07 (10th Cir. 1996). And the statutory
scheme found violative of substantive due process in Young v. _____
Weston, 898 F. Supp. 744, 748-51 (W.D. Wash. 1995), a case on ______
which plaintiffs rely, bears no resemblance to the one before
us. Finally, the contention that the exclusion violates
equal protection runs into a wall of caselaw indicating
otherwise. See, e.g., Riddle, 83 F.3d at 1207-08; Artway v. ___ ____ ______ ______
Attorney General of New Jersey, 81 F.3d 1235, 1267-68 (3d ________________________________
Cir. 1996); Lustgarden v. Gunter, 966 F.2d 552, 555 (10th __________ ______
-3-
Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1008 (1992); Amado, 366 Mass. ____________ _____
at 46-51.
Affirmed. See Loc. R. 27.1. ____________________________
-4-