to represent his client. Neither in the State’s brief nor in the record was a reason given for refusing to allow Edwards’s attorney to participate in the proceedings. The committee therefore acted arbitrarily or capriciously in refusing to allow Edwards’s attorney to participate in the hearing in any way. II. The circuit court had jurisdiction to review the decision of MDOC. ¶ 18. The circuit court held that it “lacks jurisdiction to review the actions of the Classification Committee absent due process violation, this court found none here.” The circuit court correctly interpreted Mississippi law in finding that Edwards did not have a liberty interest in his inmate classification. Carson v. Hargett, 689 So.2d 753, 755 (Miss.1996); Lewis v. State, 761 So.2d 922 (Miss.Ct.App.2000) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 19. Absent the infringement of a
holding that removal from house arrest and return to general prison population was a matter of inmate classification holding that prison conditions are those aspects of prison life affecting the entire prison population holding that a prison inmate has no general constitutional right to be free from being falsely accused in a misbehavior report holding that a prisoner has no constitutionallybased liberty interest in a particular prison classification  because an inmate is not entitled to a particular degree of liberty in prison holding that arrest by the back door of defendants house was unlawful