Background
Mark Jordan appealed the district court’s dismissal of his Administrative Procedure Act challenge to his prison disciplinary conviction. The district court had determined that prison disciplinary convictions are not reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The court’s reasoning
The Ninth Circuit held that Jordan lacked Article III standing because he could not show that past exposure to illegal conduct had continuing, present adverse effects. Although the Bureau of Prisons acknowledged a one-point increase in Jordan’s Prisoner Assessment Tool Targeting Estimated Risk and Needs score, the court found this impact too conjectural. The court noted that any future injury was speculative, requiring Jordan to commit new violations and incur further disciplinary action to materially affect his risk classification.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that challenges to expired prison disciplinary sanctions generally fail for lack of standing unless the plaintiff can demonstrate concrete, ongoing harm.