## Facts

- Miki Ann DiMarco, who lived as a woman, was described as intersex and anatomically male.
- After a probation violation, a Wyoming court sentenced DiMarco to the Wyoming Women’s Center, unaware of her intersex condition.
- During intake, prison officials discovered DiMarco’s anatomy and concluded she posed safety and security concerns if housed in the general female population.
- Officials placed DiMarco in administrative segregation, where she remained for the entirety of her approximately 14-month incarceration.
- Segregation conditions provided basic necessities and medical care but significantly limited social interaction, recreation, and access to programs compared to the general population.
- Prison officials reviewed the placement about every 90 days; DiMarco could attend reviews and express objections, but her placement did not change.
- DiMarco later brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process regarding placement and conditions.
- The district court found a protected liberty interest, concluded procedures were inadequate, and awarded nominal damages and fees; defendants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether DiMarco’s placement and conditions in long-term administrative segregation imposed an “atypical and significant hardship” sufficient to create a protected liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. If a liberty interest existed, whether the prison provided constitutionally adequate procedural protections to contest segregation placement and conditions.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment.
- The court held DiMarco did not have a protected liberty interest in her segregation placement and conditions under the Sandin standard.
- Because no liberty interest was implicated, the Constitution did not require the additional formal hearing procedures DiMarco sought.
- The nominal damages and related awards premised on a due process violation were therefore undone.

## Legal Principles

- A prisoner is entitled to procedural due process protections only when state action affects the duration of confinement or imposes an “atypical and significant hardship” compared to the ordinary incidents of prison life.
- Administrative segregation, even for an extended period, does not by itself establish an atypical and significant hardship; the inquiry is context-specific and considers both conditions and duration.
- Regular, non-punitive administrative segregation used for safety and classification reasons is generally within expected prison management discretion, and courts give substantial deference to correctional officials’ security judgments.
- If no protected liberty interest is shown, procedural due process claims fail without reaching what particular procedures would otherwise be required.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit concluded that DiMarco’s 14-month administrative segregation—imposed for safety reasons, providing basic necessities, and subject to periodic review—did not constitute an atypical and significant hardship under Sandin, so no protected liberty interest arose and no additional procedural due process protections were constitutionally required.


Estate of DiMarco v. Wyo. Dep’t of Corr., 473 F.3d 1334 (10th Cir. 2007)