Incarcerated Individuals' Lives Do Not Matter: A Fourteenth Amendment Procedural Due Process Problem

Authors

Marshall Farber, Cleveland State University College of LawFollow

Volume

73

Abstract

This Note examines the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Love v. Vanihel, in which Tony Love lost 5,700 days of good-time credit following the Indiana Department of Corrections’ issuance of Executive Directive #17-09 (“ED 17-09”). Prior to this directive, the state’s disciplinary code capped good-time credit loss at one year per offense, but ED 17-09 imposed significantly harsher sanctions, stripping Love of over 15 years of accrued credit after a single disciplinary infraction. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Love had procedurally defaulted and forfeited his due process claims. This Note argues that the Seventh Circuit’s decision was incorrect. Love’s case presents a significant Fourteenth Amendment concern, as the punishment went beyond the limits implicit in the Supreme Court’s leading decisions on procedural due process in prison discipline. This Note explores the doctrinal framework of good-time credit, and ultimately contends that Love’s sanction violated fundamental due process principles. To prevent similar injustices, this Note proposes a Procedural Due Process Sliding Scale test, which courts should adopt to ensure fairness in good-time credit deprivation cases.

Recommended Citation

Marshall Farber, Incarcerated Individuals' Lives Do Not Matter: A Fourteenth Amendment Procedural Due Process Problem, 73 Clev. St. L. Rev. Et Cetera 56 (2025)
available at https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/etcetera/vol73/iss1/3