Court holds that prisoner placed in solitary confinement for 13 years was entitled to trial on merits of due process claim

In Selby v. Caruso, et al., a convicted murderer serving a life sentence, sued the warden and other prison officials to challenge the constitutionality of a continuing administrative order confining him to "administrative segregation."  While Selby received the required monthly reviews of his solitary confinement, he alleged that he was told that the warden and correction officials couldn't release him from solitary confinement and wouldn't do so, if they could.  He alleged that the mandatory monthly reviews were a "sham" and that he was being denied due process that is guaranteed under the Constitution. 18 months after he filed his suit, correction officials released him into the general prison population (after 13 years confined), and meanwhile the trial judge summarily dismissed his lawsuit.

In an opinion authored by the Sixth Circuit, the Court related the extremely onerous terms of Selby's confinement.  The judges confirmed that Selby was entitled, under the law, to a genuine review of his administrative segregation, and that he is entitled to a trial on the merits of his claim that prison authorities were "deliberately indifferent" to the denial of his rights.