AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for
Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Inmate Funds
Monthly Law Journal Article: Legal Issues Pertaining to Inmate Funds, 2008 (4) AELE Mo. L.J. 301.
A Utah prisoner believed that state law required correctional authorities to pay interest on prisoner’s fund accounts. He further believed that a bank that contracted with the Utah Department of Corrections to hold inmate funds was illegally retaining interest earned by the funds rather than paying it to prisoners. His lawsuit claimed that he was unlawfully retaliated against for investigating this by seizing his legal papers and issuing a negative parole report that caused the denial of parole despite him being a “model prisoner” similarly situated to other prisoners granted parole. Defendants in the lawsuit included correctional officials, the bank, and bank employees. He asserted both takings and due process violations for withholding interest on his funds and First Amendment retaliation claims. The trial court dismissed all claims except the retaliation claim and dismissed all defendants except five prison officials. It then granted summary judgment on the retaliation claims to the remaining defendants. In their motion to dismiss, the Utah Department of Corrections (UDOC) and the prison-official defendants in their official capacities claimed Eleventh Amendment immunity, as an arm of the State of Utah, but this was not addressed by the trial court. A federal appeals court ruled that the takings claim against the UDOC defendants had to be dismissed based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. Williams v. Utah Department of Corrections, #18-4058, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 20157, 2019 WL 2911061 (10th Cir.).
A man sentenced to prison for seven years was also assessed a fine that qualified for garnishment under a California statute. Released in 1999, he returned to prison in 2011 under a new sentence. Correctional authorities resumed deducting a portion of his prison wages based on the fine arising out of his earlier crime. The prisoner claimed that they lacked authority to do so because he was no longer in custody for the first crime. An intermediate state appeals court disagreed, finding that if he still owed a portion of a qualifying fine and was an inmate in a California prison, the prison could deduct a portion of his prison wages. California v. Ellis, #D074710, 2019 Cal. App. Lexis 90.
A Colorado woman was convicted of both
felonies and misdemeanors connected with the alleged abuse of her children. She
was sentenced to prison and ordered to pay $8,192.50 in fees, court costs, and
restitution. Subsequently, her conviction was reversed on appeal, and she was
acquitted on retrial. A Colorado man was convicted of attempting to patronize a
prostituted child and attempted sexual assault. He was sentenced to prison and
ordered to pay $4,413 in fees, costs, and restitution. His convictions were
reversed and vacated and he was not retried. Colorado correctional officials
withheld $702.10 from the woman’s inmate account between her conviction and
acquittal. The man paid the state $1,977.75 after his conviction. After their
convictions were overturned, both of them sought refunds of the money withheld
or paid. The Colorado Supreme Court denied the refunds, ruling that Colorado’s
Exoneration Act provided the exclusive authority for refunds and that neither
of them had filed a claim under that Act. The court also upheld the
constitutionality of the Act, which permits the state to retain
conviction-related assessments until the prevailing defendant institutes a
separate civil proceeding and proves his or her innocence by clear and
convincing evidence. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed. The Act’s scheme violates
the guarantee of due process. The former prisoners had an obvious interest in
regaining the money. The state may not retain these funds simply because their
convictions were in place when the funds were taken. Once the convictions were
erased, the presumption of innocence was restored. Colorado may not presume a
person, adjudged guilty of no crime, guilty enough for monetary penalties.
Colorado’s scheme creates an unacceptable risk of the erroneous deprivation of
the defendants’ property, conditioning refunds on proof of innocence by clear
and convincing evidence, while defendants in their position are presumed
innocent. When the amount sought is not large, the cost of pursuing a claim
under the Act would be prohibitive. The state had no equitable interest in
withholding the refund of the money. Nelson v. Colorado, #15-1256,
197 L. Ed. 2d 611, 2017 U.S. Lexis 2615.
A
Wisconsin prisoner sought state post-conviction relief from his criminal
conviction, which was denied by the state trial court and intermediate appeals
court. He applied for a loan from the prison under a state law allowing inmates
to borrow up to $100 annually for the cost of paper, photocopying, and postage,
intending to use it to further appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The
prison business office denied the request. The prisoner sought federal habeas
relief, claiming that the allegedly wrongful denial of his loan request, which
he asserted he had been eligible for, prevented him from pursuing his claim in
the state supreme court. A federal appeals court upheld a rejection of the
argument that the denial of the loan should excuse his procedural default in
failing to follow through with his claim in the state supreme court. A federal
court could not excuse such a procedural default based on its own interpretation
of a state prison policy without guidance from state courts. The plaintiff also
failed to show that the denial of his loan request was an objective, external
impediment to his compliance with the state court's procedural requirements,
and it appeared that he had funds available to pursue his claim even without
the loan. Johnson v. Foster, #13-2008, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 7516 (7th Cir.).
An indigent state prisoner who filed lawsuits as
a pauper owed a filing fee of $350 to a federal trial court and $505 to a
federal appeals court. He asserted that the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(2) only mandated that there be
a monthly 20% deduction for the filing fees until both fees were paid, and that
the deductions should be used to pay off the two filing fees in the order in
which they were incurred. The government, in opposition, argued that there
should be a 20% deduction for each filing fee owed, or 40% a month, with half
being used to pay each fee. A federal appeals court upheld the prisoner's
position, ordering that only 20% of his account be deducted each month to pay
off the two filing fees in sequential recoupment. Siluk v. Merwin, #11-3996,
2015 U.S. App. Lexis 5824 (3rd Cir.).
A plaintiff prisoner
who filed three separate lawsuits against prison officials had his status of
proceeding as a pauper revoked because he had received around $6,000 in
past-due Social Security benefits that he had not reported to the court. That
revocation was improper, however, since the federal No Social Security Benefits
for Prisoners Act of 2009, 42 U.S.C. 404(a)(1)(B)(ii), barred him from
accessing those funds while incarcerated, so he could not have used them to pay
filing fees. The fact that he later, after the complaints were filed, also
received separate deposits totaling $350 into his prisoner trust account and
spent $243.11 of the money on consumer goods (which were arguably not
necessities) rather than filing fees did not alter the result. He was only
required to report his available assets at the time that he filed the lawsuits
to qualify to proceed as a pauper, and his later receipt of additional funds
did not render him ineligible. There was no indication that he did not make the
required installment payments of 20% of the income in his trust account in the
months he received the additional deposits. Arzuaga v. Quiros, #13-4586, 2015
U.S. App. Lexis 4544 (2nd Cir.).
A prisoner received a $107,416.48 settlement on
his claim against a drug manufacturer whose products caused him to develop diabetes.
Correctional officials froze $65,353.94 in his inmate trust account,
subsequently withdrawing it to pay the estimated cost of his incarceration and
medical care. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the
defendants in the prisoner's lawsuit, finding that there was no precedent
imposing an obligation to provide a pre-deprivation hearing in these
circumstances, and therefore, any right to such a hearing was not clearly
established. As for the prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim, the taking of the
funds was reimbursement for costs, not punishment, so no Eighth Amendment
rights were violated. Shinault v. Hawks, #13-35290, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 971
(9th Cir.).
Pennsylvania
prisoners were provided with bank accounts from which they could purchase
various items including over the counter medications, soap and toothpaste, as
well as pay the costs of some medical and legal services. The accounts contain
gifts they received from friends or family, as well as earnings from prison
jobs. State legislation authorized the Department to deduct court-ordered
restitution or other court ordered costs or obligations from such accounts, and
the Department adopted a policy of paying 20% of the inmate's account balance
and monthly income for such costs, automatically triggered by sentencing
orders. Prisoners challenged this as a violation of due process because they
were not provided with notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the funds
being deducted. The federal appeals court held that some claims were time
barred, and that correctional officials were entitled to qualified immunity
from money damages, but reversed summary judgment on a procedural due process
claim, finding that there were factual disputes as to the providing of notice
and that a plaintiff prisoner had no opportunity to be heard prior to the funds
being deducted. Montanez v. Sec'y PA. Dep't of Corrs., #13-1380, 763 F.3d 257
(3rd Cir. 2014).
The state of Illinois sued a prisoner for
reimbursement of the costs of his incarceration, alleging that he had assets to
cover part or all of a possible judgment. An intermediate appeals court upheld
an award of $19,925 for the state, and an order to a prison trust fund to hold
the prisoner's money which he received as a wrongful death award for the death
of his mother. The prisoner's due process rights were not violated by the lack
of advance notice, since a pre-attachment notice and hearing might have caused
him to hide or transfer the funds, and he was afforded the opportunity to
contest liability and the attachment after the funds were attached. People ex
rel. Director of the Department of Corrections v. Melton, #4-13-07002014 IL App
(4th) 130700, 2014 Ill. App. Lexis 644.
A prisoner claimed that his placement into
"refuse" status in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, and
accompanying denial of certain privileges, violated his First Amendment rights.
The program rewards inmates who participate in the program by paying off court
ordered obligations. He said that he could not both make the minimum payments
required by the program and also pursue various claims and appeals he had in
the legal system. Rejecting these claims, the appeals court found that the
prisoner suffered no actual injury and that the program at issue was reasonably
related to legitimately penological interests. It also did not violate equal
protection or due process. Driggers v. Cruz, #12-10775, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis
838 (5th Cir.).
An ordinance that imposes a $30 booking fee on
any person who has been subject to a custodial arrest and that does not grant
any hearing before attempting to collect the fee did not violate procedural due
process, and the plaintiff lacked standing to assert a substantive due process
claim. Markadonatos v. Village of Woodridge, #12-2619, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 382
(7th Cir.).
Under a Texas state statute, inmates who receive
medical care in the prison system are required to pay a $100 annual fee. The
lawsuit filed challenging this did not support an Eighth Amendment claim as
there was no allegation that the plaintiff had been denied medical care or
forced to choose between medical care and other bare necessities. The court
also rejected due process claims based on minor discrepancies between the
notice posted to prisoners and the language of the statute. Taking the required
funds from the plaintiff's inmate account was not unreasonable and was
justified by the goal of controlling the prison budget, so no Fourth Amendment
claim was viable. Morris v. Livingston, #12-50848, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 557
(5th Cir.).
A state corrections department's interpretation
of a statute as allowing it to collect charges from a prisoner's work release
order that were not incident to his confinement, such as transportation costs,
that exceeded a 40% withholding cap stated in the statute was consistent with
the statutory language and reasonable. The 40% cap only applied to costs
associated with incarceration. Thomas v. Merritt, #1120264, 2013 Ala. Lexis
172.
A prisoner convicted of a number of crimes,
including arson, was a public employee, and entitled to a state pension, which
his wife was collecting under a power of attorney. A lawsuit was filed seeking
to have the pension payments diverted to his inmate account under the "Son
of Sam Law," so that they could be frozen and made available to satisfy
any judgment his victims might later obtain in lawsuits. New York's highest
court declined to uphold an order for the diverting of the payments, since the
plaintiff in the lawsuit failed to properly preserve the argument that the Son
of Sam Law superseded a state statute that provides that pensions are not
subject to attachment or garnishment. In the Matter of New York State Office of Victim Services
v. Raucci, #6, 2013 N.Y. Lexis 130, 2013 NY Slip Op 01018.
A prisoner failed to establish that charging him
a $2 co-payment for needed dental work violated his Eighth Amendment rights. At
the time of the treatment, he had more than $2 in his prisoner fund account. It
does not violate a prisoner's rights to charge them even a modest co-payment
for needed dental or other medical services when they have the resources to pay
it. Poole v. Isaacs, #11-2903, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 26544 (7th Cir.).
Under an Indiana state law, a prison's recreation
fund that acquired money from sources other than state funds, such as profits
from sales at the prison's commissary, was required to spend those funds
strictly for the "direct benefit" of prisoners, and for things not
covered by state appropriations. A prisoner sued, claiming that money from the
fund was improperly being used for prohibited purposes, without due process of
law. He claimed prison officials had diverted some of the funds for their own
personal use and that other funds were used for purposes already covered by
existing state budget allocations, such as the purchase of cameras and other
devices for prison security enhancement. Regardless of the truth or falsity of
these claims, the prisoner had no property interest in the money in the fund.
The lawsuit was therefore properly dismissed. Booker-El v. Superintendent,
Indiana State Prison, #10–1490, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 2549 (7th Cir.).
Prison staff members intercepted a prisoner's
retroactive Supplemental Social Security benefits check, sent through the mail,
and returned it to the Social Security Administration. Rejecting his lawsuit, a
federal appeals court noted that the No Social Security Benefits for Prisoners
Act, Pub. L. No.111-115, 123 Stat. 3029 (2009), prohibits such payments to
incarcerated persons, regardless of when the obligation to pay the benefits
originally occurred. The prisoner would be eligible, however, to receive the
retroactive benefits, due for a period of time prior to his incarceration, only
after his release. Fowlkes v. Thomas, #10-5192, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 1769
(2nd Cir.).
Kansas prisoners argued that that a requirement
that they save 10% of their income in accounts to be disbursed to them only
upon their release violated their substantive due process rights. A federal
appeals court disagreed, ruling that the requirement was rationally related to
a legitimate goal of ensuring that the release eligible prisoners have some
funds upon their release to assist their transition back into society. The
court did not reach the issue of the constitutionality of the rule as applied
to prisoners serving life sentences, since none of those plaintiffs had
exhausted their available administrative remedies. Reedy v.Werholtz,
#11-3040, 660 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2011).
A federal appeals court rejected prisoners'
claims that alleged overcharges or excessive prices in the prison commissary in
violation of a state statute concerning the mark-up on goods violated their
right to due process of law. The court reasoned that "no pre-deprivation
process could have predicted or prevented the alleged deprivation, and
plaintiffs have not alleged the absence of adequate post-deprivation
remedies." Tenny v. Blagojevich #10-3075, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 17976 (7th
Cir.)
Upholding the Rhode Island Department of
Corrections' change in its policy and practice of no longer paying
interest on prisoner's accounts, a federal appeals court ruled that inmates had
no constitutionally protected property right to interest not yet paid into
their accounts. The change in policy, therefore, did not constitute an
unconstitutional taking. Young v. Wall, #10-1862, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 7692
(1st Cir.).
Correctional officials in Illinois had the right
to attach funds that a prisoner saved from his wages while incarcerated over a
period of decades to recover the cost of his incarceration. A state statute
concerning this placed no limitation on the right of the state to file a
lawsuit to recover such funds. In this case, the prisoner saved over $11,000
from his $75 a month prison wages by failing to spend much at all. The state
got a $455,203.14 judgment against him for the cost of his incarceration, and
the appeals court rejected the argument that the state was barred from such a
recovery from inmate savings by the fact that it already takes a 3% offset from
inmate wages for incarceration costs. The inmate, not eligible for parole until
2028, has appealed the ruling to the Illinois Supreme Court. People ex rel.
Dep't of Corr. v. Hawkins, #3-09-0418, 2010 Ill. App. Lexis 621, 402 Ill. App.
3d 204 (3rd Dist.).
Inmates at a number of federal prisons are
allowed to have themselves photographed, either by themselves or with visitors,
with the photos paid for by the Inmate Trust fund. A number of them sued
federal prison authorities, claiming that a secret practice of retaining
duplicate prints of such photos for security related purposes (and charging the
cost of these prints to the Inmate Trust Fund) was improper and violated the
inmates' rights under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552a. The plaintiffs
failed to rebut government affidavits stating that prison personnel did not
intentionally or willfully violate the Privacy Act, and that the retained
photos were only used for legitimate law enforcement purposes. Issues concerning
the use of funds from the Inmate Trust Account for the photo prints were now
moot since the plaintiffs were no longer in custody. Maydak v. U.S., #07-5352,
2010 U.S. App. Lexis 26283 (D.C. Cir.).
In a prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit
concerning the freezing of his prison trust account after a victim of his
violent crime obtained a $2 million judgment against him, the defendant prison
official was entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiff, in 2007, did
not have a clearly established right to a pre-deprivation hearing before the
freezing of his account. Clark v. Wilson, #09-6219, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 23939
(10th Cir.).
An Arizona prisoner objected to the withdrawal of
$50 from his prison wages under a state statute requiring that amount to be put
in a special account to be paid to him upon his release. The appeals court
ruled that this action did not violate the prisoner's due process rights as he
had no current possessory property interest in the withheld money, and the
action did not permanently deprive him of his wages. Ward v. Ryan, #07-17156,
2010 U.S. App. Lexis 19936 (9th Cir.).
A federal appeals court rejected a prisoner's
argument that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) exceeded its authority by
establishing a payment schedule for deducting money from his inmate account to
pay a fine that the sentencing court imposed on him. 18 U.S.C.S. § 3572(d)(1)
of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act requires that such fines or
restitution must be paid immediately unless a court explicitly orders
installment payments or payment at a future date, which was not the case here.
The sentencing court found that the prisoner was able to earn the $750 fine
through prison work programs. Gonzalez-Rivera v. Holt, #09-3524, 2010 U.S. App.
Lexis 1404 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
An injunction was granted barring a prisoner from
accessing funds in a guardianship account established for him until claims
asserted by his crime victims were settled. The guardianship expired in 1997
when the prisoner became 18, and he became entitled to the funds. Such funds
fit the definition of "funds of a convicted person" and were subject
to New York's "Son of Sam" law, so that the injunction was properly
granted. New York State Crime Victims Board (Organek) v. Harris, #506010, 2009
N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 8926 (A.D. 3rd Dept.).
A New York trial court granted a motion by the
state crime victims board to enjoin distribution of the proceeds of a medical
malpractice settlement to an inmate, in order to preserve the funds for
possible distribution to the victims of his crimes. The prisoner then asked
that he be paid at least 10% of the net settlement amount as he claimed was
required by a state statute providing for an exemption. Reversing the denial of
that request, an intermediate appellate court found that the statute in
question applied to both funds received as a result of a judgment after
litigation and to funds received as a settlement, rejecting a trial court
opinion that it only applied to judgments after trial. Finding otherwise, the
court noted, would punish litigants who settled lawsuits rather than pursuing
litigation, which would violate the public policy of encouraging settlements.
N.Y. State Crime Victims Board v. Gordon, #506884, 2009 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis
7417 (3rd Dept.).
From the record, the court was unable to
determine whether a notice a prisoner received concerning funds withdrawn from
his inmate account was constitutionally adequate, and whether current
Pennsylvania correctional policies regarding the withdrawal of such funds
satisfied constitutional requirements of sufficient notice and an opportunity
to respond. Further proceedings were ordered. Montanez v. Beard. #06-3520; 2009
U.S. App. Lexis 20038 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
An inmate claimed that the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections' imposition of co-pay fees for medical treatment
violated state law and regulations, as well as his constitutional rights.
Upholding the deduction of the co-pay fee from the prisoner's account for
treatment of his chronic skin condition, the court found that the payment
requirement was not such an atypical and significant hardship as to constitute
a constitutional violation, and also rejected state law claims. Portalatin v.
Department of Corrections, #569 M.D. 2008, 2009 Pa. Commw. Lexis 1072.
A prisoner voluntarily enrolled in the Bureau of
Prisons' Inmate Financial Responsibility Program and agreed to pay $70 a month
in restitution. The terms of his sentence provided that restitution was
immediately payable, and that, upon any term of supervised release, he would
have to pay at least $100 month towards any unpaid part of the restitution. He
subsequently filed a motion in the sentencing court to have the payments
suspended or reduced to $25 quarterly. A federal appeals court found that the
prisoner's request could not be granted. All challenges to BOP administrative
programs must be filed in the federal court in the district where the prisoner
is incarcerated, rather than the sentencing court, and must be filed under 28
U.S.C. Sec. 2241. Further, such a challenge may only be pursued after the
inmate has exhausted available administrative remedies, which the plaintiff had
not done. U.S. v. Diggs, #08-10658, 578 F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 2009).
A prisoner failed to show that charging him $10
for medical services and medications constituted cruel and unusual punishment,
since he did not alleged that he was denied medical treatment because of lack
of ability to pay. The prison's policies did not limit the providing of such
services to those able to pay. Cannon v. Mason, #08-7117, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis
17655 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).
The Texas Supreme Court ruled that state prison
officials can take money from inmate trust accounts to collect court fees owed
and other costs without first notifying a prisoner. Due process was not
violated, as the prisoners received "contemporaneous" notice of the
withdrawal of the money, and the Constitution does not require pre-withdrawal
notice. Harrell v. State of Texas, No. 07-0806, 2009 Tex. Lexis 321.
Rejecting a prisoner's challenge to prison commissary
prices, which he claimed violated his rights to due process and equal
protection, as well as the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553, a court stated that prisoners do not have a
constitutional right to pay fixed prices for food and other commissary items.
The prisoner's challenge to the setting of prison phone rates was barred by the
fact that he had litigated the same issue in an earlier federal lawsuit.
Harrison v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, #07-1543, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 37394
(D.D.C.).
A prison rule requiring inmates to put 10% of
certain funds into a savings account to be paid to them on release was
justified by a legitimate correctional interest in easing their transition back
into society. The trial court improperly rejected, however, the prisoner's
challenge to a ban on sexually explicit materials when he had standing to
challenge the rule since he had such materials, which he mailed to the court to
comply with a deadline to dispose of them, and there was an indication that he
would have been subject to discipline had he not done so. Sperry v. Werholtz,
#08-3274, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 7931 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).
While the alleged denial of medical treatment for
gas did not involve a serious medical condition, a prisoner's argument that
lack of treatment for dry skin and eczema resulted in skin that cracked and
bled did show possible deliberate indifference to a serious problem. The trial
court improperly analyzed a claim concerning the unauthorized charging of
co-payments for medications under the Eighth Amendment instead of the
Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, requiring further proceedings.
McKeithan v. Beard, #08-1746, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 7308 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
Federal appeals court overturns dismissal
of prisoner's lawsuit alleging that prison practices and regulations resulted,
after he paid costs for constitutionally protected litigation, in the inmate
being without the funds to buy needed hygiene products, and that the defendants
acted with deliberate indifference in failing to provide him with such hygiene
products for a prolonged period of time. The appeals court rejected that trial
court's belief that the issue simply amounted to the prisoner's own decision as
how to spend his limited funds. Preliminary injunctive relief, however, was
denied. Whitington v. Ortiz, No. 07-1425, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 651 (Unpub. 10th
Cir.).
A provision of the state law pertaining to parolees
held or detained for proceedings to declare them sexually violent predators is
void to the extent that it would bar the payment to them of a $200 release
allowance otherwise authorized to be paid to all prisoners upon their release.
Sabatasso v. Superior Court of Orange County, No. G039906, 2008 Cal. App. Lexis
1615,167 Cal. App. 4th 791; 84 Cal. Rptr. 3d 447 (Cal. App. 4th Dist.).
Pennsylvania prisoner was entitled to further
proceedings on his claim that actions by the Department of Corrections in
directing that his institutional account be assessed for medical and other
expenses for another inmate violated due process. The assessment was ordered
after a disciplinary proceeding concluded that the prisoner had assaulted and injured
another inmate. Burns v. Pa. Dept. of Correction, No. 07-1678, 2008 U.S. App.
Lexis 20073 (3rd Cir.).
A federal appeals court rejected a prisoners
claim that he was coerced into participation in the Bureau of Prisons (BOP)
Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP) or that doing so violated his
constitutional right to due process. The prisoner could have refused to
participate without being disciplined for his actions, so that a case worker
and a counselor, in discussing the IFRP program with him, and encouraging
him to sign a contract to participate, did not engage in coercion. Further, to
the extent that the prisoner sought to challenge restitution ordered by the
trial court in his criminal case, he could not do so in a federal civil rights
lawsuit, since it was part of his criminal sentence which had not been set
aside or modified. Duronio v. B.O.P. Director Gonzales, No. 08-2077, 2008 U.S.
App. Lexis 19455 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) did not act
improperly in encouraging voluntary payments in excess of those required under
court judgments for restitution to the victims of crime, even if it conditioned
the receipt of certain privileges during incarceration on a prisoner's
participation in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP). The court
rejected challenges to victim restitution payments schedules asserted by
prisoners participating in the IFRP. U.S. v. Lemoine, No. 06-50663, 2008 U.S.
App. Lexis 21189 (9th Cir.).
A prisoner who claimed that he was overcharged
for making copies, and improperly had funds deducted from his jail financial
account for the cost of three welfare kits that he did not receive, failed to
show that there were no meaningful post-deprivation remedies available under
state law, and he therefore could not pursue a claim for violation of his
constitutional rights. Sawyer v. Green, No. 08-3083, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 13119
(Unpub. 10th Cir.).
Prison authorities properly relied on a computer
record in deducting $1,347.97 from an inmate's account for costs assessed
against him by a court. The prisoner's argument that the court that assessed
these costs against him had "mixed him up" with his cousin was an
argument he should have raised in the sentencing court. Herrschaft v. Dept. of
Corrections, No. 307 M.D. 2006, 2008 Pa. Commw. Lexis 260.
A prisoner in a private prison in Texas had a
First Amendment right to write to the Wyoming Department of Corrections
Director asking to be returned to Wyoming and complaining about the conditions
of his confinement, and stated a valid claim against seven prison employees
contending that they retaliated against him for doing so. He also asserted a
valid claim for unconstitutional deprivation of his funds by alleging that he
was fined $50 because he testified in another prisoner's disciplinary hearing.
Pfeh v. Freudenthal, No. 07-10312, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 12897 (Unpub. 5th
Cir.).
Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) did not act
unlawfully in collecting money from prisoner to pay for court ordered
restitution. The prisoner's argument that the restitution was only due after he
would be released from prison was incorrect, and the court's order gave the BOP
authority to deduct sums from his account to start to pay the restitution under
the terms of its rules and regulations. The prisoner's challenge to the BOP's
Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP), under which a schedule for the
restitution payments had been established, was meritless. West v. Zenk, No.
07-13349, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 11229 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
Ohio correctional officials did not act
improperly in seizing financial gifts sent to an inmate for the purpose of
paying his fine and court costs he had been ordered to pay after his
conviction. The court found that the correctional officials' conclusion that
"income" within the meaning of an Ohio Administrative Code provision
authorizing the seizure of inmate funds for these purposes includes
"gifts." The prisoner had no right to have gifts excluded from his income
otherwise subjected to seizure. State Ex Rel. Turner v. Eberlin, No. 2007-2013,
2008 Ohio Lexis 693.
Ohio correctional officials had legitimate
authority to take money from a prisoner's prison account under a state statute
for the purpose of paying an Arizona state restitution order. Wassenaar v. Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, No. 07AP-712, 2008 Ohio App. Lexis
1053 (Ohio App. 10th Dist.).
Federal Bureau of Prison's use of the Inmate
Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP) to increase the quarterly payments that
a prisoner was required to make for special assessments and restitution
stemming from his conviction did not violate his constitutional rights. The
BOP's setting of an individual payment schedule for prisoners for court-ordered
restitution did not violate due process. The BOP's use of inducements or
withholding of benefits when a prisoner refused to participate in the IFRP did
not alter the result. Davis v. Wiley, No. 07-1303, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 42
(10th Cir.).
The retroactive application of newly adopted
administrative code regulations and correctional policies to charge inmates
co-payments for certain medical services, when they previously received those
services for free, did not violate their due process rights or their plea agreements.
Ridenour v. Wilkinson, No. 07AP-200, 2007 Ohio App. Lexis 5238 (Ohio App. 10th
Dist.).
It did not violate the rights of a prisoner
serving a 197-year sentence to withhold $50 from his wages for "gate
money" as authorized under an Arizona state statute. Gate money is money
given to prisoners upon their release, and the prisoner argued that the
withholding deprived him of property without just compensation or due process
of law since he would not be released during his lifetime. The court ruled that
the application of the statute to prisoners serving life imprisonment was not
improper since it was possible that they could be released before the end of
the lives, and the statute promoted the "common good" in assisting
released prisoners in reentering society. Ward v. Stewart, No. CV 01-2226, 2007
U.S. Dist. Lexis 73909 (D. Ariz.).
A state statute which allowed the garnishment of
a prisoner's "monthly income" to satisfy court judgments, such as a
fine and court costs assessed against the plaintiff prisoner, did not allow the
seizure of "non-income" such as money received as a gift from the
prisoner's family. The court prohibited the warden from seizure of gifts or
other amounts from the prisoner's account which were not attributable to
earnings. State ex rel. Turner v. Eberlin, Case No. 07 BE 6, 2007 Ohio
App. Lexis 4445.
County policies under which money from a
detainee's canteen account was withheld for booking and arraignment fees, and
for room-and-board did not violate due process even though no pre-deprivation
hearing was provided. A county's interests in encouraging offender
accountability and sharing the costs of incarceration were substantial and
outweighed the "small" private interest in a detainee retaining the
money. Relatives of detainees who sent funds to be deposited in such canteen
accounts voluntarily gave up any interest they previously had in the money.
Sickles v. Campbell County, Kentucky, No. 06-6055, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 21163
(6th Cir.).
Inmate at municipal jail was not entitled to a
hearing before the facility withheld a part of his canteen funds to cover the
costs of his booking, room and board. Recovering such costs of incarceration
did not violate the inmate's due process rights. Sickles v. Campbell County, No.
06-6055, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 21163 (6th Cir.).
Prison canteen manager and prison officials did
not violate an inmate's 14th Amendment due process rights to his funds or
property based on allowing another prisoner who stole his prison ID card to use
it to buy $47 worth of commissary items which were then charged to the
plaintiff's inmate account. The prisoner claimed that he had personally told
the canteen operators about the card theft, that he was told that the card had
been deactivated, and that his $47 was not restored to his account, despite his
having followed prison grievance procedures concerning the purchases. The
defendants' actions, at most, were negligent, and negligent conduct did not
violate his federal constitutional rights. Additionally, there were sufficient
remedies available to the prisoner under state law for the recovery of his
funds, including the prison grievance process. Menendez v. Keefe Supply
Company, No. 06-13450, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12325 (11th Cir.).
Florida appeals court rules that prisoner was
entitled to an order for the reimbursement of funds withdrawn from his inmate
trust account to satisfy an unauthorized lien, rejecting trial court's ruling
that the issue was moot because the funds had been used to fully satisfy the
lien. Turner v. McDonough, No. 1D06-3090, 2007 Fla. App. Lexis 1799 (Fla. App.
1st Dist.). [N/R]
Four prisoners whose pension benefits were seized
by the state of Michigan under a state statute to partially reimburse the state
for the cost of their incarceration did not show that they did not have a full
and fair opportunity to challenge the seizure in state courts which had issued
orders for the seizures. The prisoners, therefore, could not challenge in
federal court the constitutionality of the seizures under the due process
clause of the 14th Amendment or its legality under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 et seq. Abbott v. State of
Michigan, No. 06-1434, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 1313 (6th Cir.). [N/R]
Bank's action in failing to send a prisoner a
check for the balance in his account, after changing the interest rate paid on
his savings, which was based on the fact that a Bureau of Prison (BOP) unit
manager had not authorized the withdrawal, as required by prison policy, did
not violate the prisoner's rights. Burnside v. Old National Bank, No. 06-2832,
2006 U.S. App. Lexis 31221 (7th Cir.). [N/R]
In prisoner's lawsuit challenging garnishment of
his prison account to pay appeals court costs, Michigan state statute did not
allow the deduction of 100% of the inmate's monthly income from his account for
such costs, but rather limited the deduction to 20%. Accordingly, while costs
were properly assessed against the prisoner, he could proceed with aspects of his
lawsuit challenging the manner of collection of the costs. Skinner v.
Govorchin, No. 05-2458, 463 F.3d 518 (6th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
Deduction of 5% of an inmate's monthly prison
wages under a Kansas state statute directing the payment of such an amount to a
crime victims' compensation fund did not violate his constitutional rights,
despite the absence of a court order requiring the inmate to pay restitution to
his victim. A prison policy requiring such payments satisfied constitutional
due process, and the prisoner was not entitled to a hearing prior to the
deduction of the money. Ellibee v. Simmons, No. 05-3479, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis
26169 (10th Cir.). [N/R]
Prisoner had no legitimate property right in
receiving a money order of funds from the mother of another inmate, when money
sent from the family members of another inmate was considered contraband under
prison rules. Failing to provide him with a pre-deprivation hearing before
confiscating the money order did not violate his due process rights. Steffey v.
Orman, No. 05-7064, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 22237 (10th Cir.). [2006 JP Oct]
Illinois correctional officials could properly
recover, under a state statute, $124,191.22 as reimbursement for the cost of a
prisoner's incarceration from the value of an annuity he bought with the
proceeds of an insurance policy on the life of his mother, less a $2,000
statutory exemption. The fact that the annuity was bought with the proceeds of
a life insurance policy did not make the annuity exempt from collection
efforts. The court further found that because the inmate was not a dependent of
his mother when she died, an exemption under state law for insurance proceeds
paid to a dependent also did not apply. The fact that the prisoner himself had
dependents also did not alter the state's ability to seize the annuity. People
Ex. Rel. Director of Corrections v. Ruckman, No. 5-05-0132, 843 N.E.2d 882
(Ill. App. 5th Dist. 2006). [N/R]
Under North Dakota law correctional officials had
statutory authority to charge a prisoner's account for the full cost of dental
services he received, including an "after hours" fee of $78 billed by
the dentist. Wheeler v. Gardner, No. 20050166, 708 N.W.2d 908 (N.D. 2006).
[N/R]
Department of Corrections' collection of prisoner's
debt to it from his inmate savings account at the time of his release did not
violate a statute requiring a mandatory savings of a portion of his funds so
that he would not be released in a totally indigent condition. In re Smith, No.
31426-6-II, 125 P.3d 233 (Wash. App. Div. 2 2005). [N/R]
Deduction from prison account of Kansas inmate to
pay fees incurred for supervision while he was on parole was not cruel and
unusual punishment, a violation of due process, a violation of equal
protection, or an unconstitutional retroactive enhancement of the prisoner's
punishment. Owens v. Sebelius, No. CIV.A. 04-3178, 357 F. Supp. 2d 1281 (D.
Kan. 2005). [N/R]
Kansas prisoner who had uncollected disciplinary
restitution from prior incarceration was subject to amended statute allowing
prison officials to collect remaining amount from his inmate account upon his
subsequent reincarceration on other offenses. Application of statute to
prisoner did not amount to an unconstitutional retroactive enhancement of his
punishment under the "ex post facto" clause of the Constitution.
Tonge v. Werholtz, No. 93,329, 109 P.3d 1140 (Kan. 2005). [N/R]
Seizure of inmate's disability pension benefits
to pay for the cost of his care while incarcerated, pursuant to Missouri state
statute, did not violate his right to substantive due process. Statute was not
unconstitutionally vague as to specification of which of an inmate's assets
could be considered in determining whether a prisoner had sufficient assets to
support an assessment of costs of incarceration. State ex rel. Nixon v. Powell,
No. SC 86453, 167 S.W.3d 702 (Mo. bank 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner could not pursue federal civil rights
claim against a correctional officer for depriving him of property by taking a
check from his legal mail and putting it into his inmate trust fund account
against his wishes. The prisoner failed to show that he had attempted to pursue
state law post-deprivation remedies, or that they were inadequate in any way.
McMillan v. Fielding, No. 04-5745, 136 Fed. Appx. 818 (6th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner could not pursue federal civil rights
lawsuit challenging the county jail's deduction of a subsistence fee from his
prisoner account when his claim did not challenge the constitutionality of the
state regulation allowing such a deduction, but merely the application of the
regulation to him, which was an issue of state law. Cruz v. Aladro, No.
04-14671, 129 Fed. Appx. 549 (11th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Iowa statute allowing county sheriff to charge a
convicted prisoner for room and board while in custody was not a violation of
due process, equal protection, or the constitutional separation of powers, and
courts had "inherent discretionary powers" to review whether an order
for such charges was appropriate, despite the lack of an express provision in
the statute providing for judicial scrutiny. State v. Abrahamson, No. 03-1907,
696 N.W.2d 589 (Iowa 2005). [N/R]
Inmates who received damages from the
State of New Hampshire as a result of a decision finding a 5% surcharge on
prison commissary purchases unconstitutional were also entitled to interest on
the amounts received. Supreme Court of New Hampshire rejects argument that only
the plaintiff prisoner who filed the lawsuit challenging the surcharge was
entitled to interest because only he was a "party" to the litigation.
Starr v. Governor, No. 2004-292, 864 A.2d 348 (N.H. 2004). [N/R]
Exemption in Illinois
statutes preventing the attachment of payments of up to $7,500 made to inmate
because of personal injuries applied in an action by the state seeking to
recover the cost of incarceration. People ex rel. Director of Corrections v.
Booth, No. 99329, 2005 Ill. Lexis 634 (2005). [N/R]
Jail's policy of charging pre-trial detainees one
dollar a day to help recover the cost of their housing did not violate their
rights or constitute punishment before conviction. Slade v. Hampton Roads
Regional Jail, #04-6481, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 8070 (4th Cir.). [2005 JB Jun]
Rhode Island prisoner stated a possible claim for
violation of procedural due process based on failure to pay him interest on
account funded through deduction from his prison wages, when interest in fact
accrued on the money and that interest was retained by state officials rather
than being returned to the inmate account as required by a state Department of
Corrections policy. Young v. A.T. Wall, No. 03-2208, 359 F. Supp. 2d 84 (D.R.I.
2005). [N/R]
Kansas state regulation imposing a $25 monthly
supervision fee on parolees and prison officials' deduction of that amount from
prisoner's inmate account did not violate due process rights under the Fifth or
Fourteenth Amendment. Taylor v. Sebelius, No. CIV.A. 04-3063, 350 F. Supp. 2d
888 (D. Kan. 2004).[N/R]
A Washington state Department of Corrections rule
which imposed a charge on prisoners for the shipping of their personal property
when they were transferred to a new facility violated a state statute requiring
that an inmate's personal property be delivered to the facility in which they
were incarcerated. Burton v. Lehman, No. 74731-8, 103 P.3d 1230 (Wash.
2005).[N/R]
Prisoner's lawsuit over the alleged unauthorized
deduction of $150 from his inmate trust account was properly dismissed when he
failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies. Buhl v. United States,
117 Fed. Appx. 39 (10th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
California prisoner did not state a claim against
the Director of the Department of Corrections for taking his property without
due process of law based on deductions of funds from his prison account to pay
court-ordered restitution. Abney v. Alameida, No. CIV.02CV2136-BEN PCL, 334 F.
Supp. 2d 1221 (S.D. Cal. 2004). [N/R]
Massachusetts inmate's lawsuit against prison
superintendent and the Commissioner of Corrections was properly dismissed for
his failure to pay a reduced filing fee of $25 ordered by the trial court.
Despite the fact that his account had been frozen to pay his restitution, a
state statute required the prison superintendent to disburse funds for such
costs to the court for inmates claiming to be indigent, and the plaintiff
failed to submit a written request to the superintendent for such payment.
Cepulonis v. Superintendent, Mass. Corr., #03-P-1452, 813 N.E.2d 882 (Mass.
App. Ct. 2004). [N/R]
Intention of Iowa correctional officials to charge a
co-payment for kosher meals provided to Orthodox Jewish inmates had no
reasonable relationship to any legitimate penological interest in maintaining a
fixed budget for food or teaching "financial responsibility" to
prisoners. Plaintiff prisoner was entitled to summary judgment on the
co-payment issue. Thompson v. Vilsack, 328 F. Supp. 2d 974 (S.D. Iowa, 2004).
[N/R]
Inmate had no protected property interest in the
interest that accrued on an account containing his work release wages, so that
a policy of the Alabama Department of Corrections prohibiting him from
receiving such interest was constitutional. Givens v. Alabama Department of
Corrections, No. 03-14086, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 17248 (11th Cir. 2004).
[2004 JB Oct]
State statute authorizing Kansas correctional
officials to adopt a regulatory scheme for assessing fees against inmates did
not violate a prisoner's due process or equal protection rights and was not an
invalid retroactive enhancement of his punishment. The legislation was
supported by legitimate goals such as teaching fiscal responsibility and
reimbursing the state for the costs of incarcerating the prisoners rationally
related to the scheme adopted. Elliott v. Simmons, No. 03-3280, 100 Fed. Appx.
777 (10th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner's due process rights were not violated
by court proceeding which allowed State of Illinois to attach $4,000 in a bank
account in the prisoner's name to recover costs incurred during his incarceration.
State complied with applicable service and notice requirements of pre-judgment
attachment statute. People Ex Rel. Director of Corrections v. Edwards, No.
5-02-0455, 812 N.E.2d 355 (Ill. App. 5th Dist. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoners were entitled to habeas relief when
their disciplinary convictions, which were the basis for revocation of their
earned credits, were not supported by "some evidence." Their requests
for disbursements from their inmate mandatory savings accounts to pay court
copying fees for records and transcripts needed to prepare applications for
post-conviction relief were reasonable under both a prison policy concerning
the use of funds in such accounts and an Oklahoma state statute, and their
disciplinary convictions for obtaining money by false pretense were therefore
not supported by the evidence. Gamble v. Calbone, #03-6057, 375 F.3d 1021 (10th
Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Alabama correctional officials did not violate
prisoner's rights by withholding part of the monetary benefits paid to him for
injuries suffered while participating in a work-release program, and using that
money to pay for part of the cost of the prisoner's incarceration. The prisoner
was not an "employee" within the meaning of the state's workers'
compensation statute, so that the protections of the statute against
garnishment or seizure of benefits awards did not apply. Further, even if he
had been interpreted to be an "employee," the benefits were in lieu
of wages, and therefore the seizure of them to pay for part of the cost of
incarceration was authorized under state law. Gober v. Alabama Dept. of
Corrections, No. 2020064, 871 So. 2d 838 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003). [N/R]
City jail's practice of assessing state prison
inmates held there a $1 per day room and board fee, under the authority of a
state statute did not violate their constitutional rights against cruel and
unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment or constitute an
"excessive fine" (indeed, it was not a "fine" at all, but
merely the recoupment of expenses from prisoners with funds). Failure of jail
to similarly impose such a fee on federal prisoners held in the facility did
not violate equal protection, and it did not violate due process for the jail
to fail to provide inmates with a "post-deprivation hearing" on the
imposition of the fee. Waters v. Bass, 304 F. Supp. 2d 802 (E.D. Va. 2004).
[N/R]
Prisoners' claims against federal Bureau of
Prisons challenging an alleged practice of retaining second copies of photos
taken of prisoners and their visitors reinstated. Plaintiffs claimed that this
practice violated their rights under the Privacy Act as well as constituting a
misuse of Inmate Trust Fund money when the photos were paid for by the Fund.
Maydak v. U.S., No. 02-5168, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 7542 (D.C. Cir. 2004). [2004
JB Jun]
Kansas prison policy requiring inmates to save
10% of all money into a trust account did not violate the due process rights of
prisoners serving life sentences. The state had a legitimate interest in making
sure that prisoners had some money available to help in their readjustment if
they were released, and in providing some money for the inmate's estate if they
died while in custody. Ellibee v. Simmons, No. 91,050, 85 P.3d 216 (Kan. App.
2004). [N/R]
Twenty percent deduction from Pennsylvania
inmate's prison account to pay his criminal fine was authorized by statute and
requirement that he pay small amounts for expenses such as medical visits,
copying expenses, and personal hygiene supplies did not constitute cruel and
unusual punishment or otherwise violate his rights. Neely v. Department of
Corrections, 838 A.2d 16 (Pa. Cmwlth 2003). [N/R]
Prison officials violated prisoners' rights by
requiring them, as a condition of prison employment, to waive any property
rights to accrued interest on their inmate trust accounts, and violated
prisoners' due process rights by confiscating this interest despite a state
statute entitling them to the interest, when no procedure was provided to
contest the loss. Officials had qualified immunity from liability for the
seizure of interest, however, as prisoners' rights were not clearly
established, but not for retaliating against prisoners for refusal to waive the
interest. Vance v. Barrett, No. 01-15819, 345 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2003).[2004
JB Feb]
Trial court did not exceed its discretion in
dismissing a prisoner's claim against prison officials for a refund of $13.05
for "picture tickets" he purchased which he was unable to use after
his transfer to a new prison. Basis of dismissal was prisoner's failure to
appear in court, and there was no showing that the plaintiff prisoner took any
steps to achieve his attendance at the hearing. Under state law rules for small
claims, however, the dismissal should have been "without prejudice"
to his possibly refiling the claim in the future. Brown v. State of Indiana,
No. 62A04-0204-CV-134, 781 N.E.2d 773 (Ind. App. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner was not entitled to an order that the
state Department of Corrections stop deducting funds from his inmate account
for restitution, fines, and court costs. Such deductions were authorized by
statute, 42 Pa. C.S.A. Sec. 9728(b)(5) and the court rejected the prisoner's
claim that a 20% deduction from his account created a financial hardship, since
he received room, clothing, and board and did not allege what he could not
afford as a result of the deductions. Buck v. Beard, 834 A.2d 696 (Pa. Cmwlth
2003). [N/R]
Prisoner's agreement to forfeit drug proceeds as
part of a plea bargain included $19,000 which had been held by his brother, and
which his brother turned over to the state. State officials did not violate
prisoner's civil rights in obtaining these funds, and prisoner had no standing
to challenge the forfeiture of the money. Libretti v. Wyoming Attorney General,
No. 02-8018, 60 Fed. Appx. 194 (10th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Pennsylvania prisoner had no due process right to
a hearing concerning the amount that the Department of Corrections would deduct
from his inmate account to pay sentenced costs, fines, and restitution. Ingram
v. Newman, 830 A.2d 1099 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003). [N/R]
Federal appeals court orders further
proceedings to determine whether state Department of Prisons, in taking from a
prisoner the interest earned on his inmate trust account for the use of a fund
for the "benefit of all offenders" owed him any just compensation.
Prisoner would be entitled to compensation if the interest earned on his funds
exceeded his share of the costs of administering inmate trust accounts.
McIntyre v. Bayer, No. 01-55169, 339 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003). [2003
JB Nov]
Pennsylvania prisoner's rights were not violated
by the actions of correctional officials in deducting funds from his inmate
account to pay fines and costs imposed as part of his sentence. State statute
governing the collection of fines and costs was "procedural" and
therefore could be applied retroactively. George v. Beard, 824 A.2d 393 (Pa.
Cmwlth 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner's rights were not violated by actions
prohibiting him from using his account funds to purchase personal hygiene
products when he received a monthly "indigency package" containing
hygiene products which contained what was absolutely necessary for personal
hygiene. His inability to purchase over-the-counter medications for his
headaches also did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment. Stolte v.
Cummings, No. 89,229, 70 P.3d 695 (Kan. App. 2003). [N/R]
Florida statutes making prisoners liable for $50
per day for the portion of their sentences remaining after the effective date
of the statutes was not a violation of their due process rights or the
prohibition on ex post facto laws that increase criminal punishments
retroactively. The purpose of the statutes was not punishment but rather the
reimbursement of public funds spent on the prisoners, who had no vested right
to free room and board. Goad v. Florida Department of Corrections, No.
SC00-785, 845 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner who escaped while on work release was
barred from appealing a judgment denying his claim to recover his wages, which
were paid to the correctional institution and treated as forfeited or abandoned
due to his escape. Intermediate Missouri appeals court rules that "escape
rule" applies in that state to allow a court to dismiss either a criminal
appeal or an appeal in a civil case based on a prisoner's escape from custody.
Spencer v. Ouverson, No. WD 60109, 98 S.W.2d 69 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002). [N/R]
Prisoner's rights were not violated by the
withdrawal of all funds from his inmate trust account when all withdrawals were
pursuant to court orders to pay debts he incurred filing multiple legal
actions. Withdrawal of funds did not interfere with his access to the courts,
nor did it make him a "slave," as he subsequently demonstrated by
quitting his job and remaining confined to his cell during working hours.
Erdman v. Martin, No. 02-1302, 52 Fed. Appx. 801 (6th Cir. 2002). [2003 JB
May]
Colorado Restitution Act, C.R.S.A. Sec.
16-18.5-106, allowed state correctional officials to withhold funds from
prisoner's account to pay victim compensation costs, victim assistance
surcharges imposed as part of sentence for sexual assault, and court costs,
even though the sentence was imposed before the effective date of the statute,
since it stated that it applied to all "delinquencies of orders"
existing on or after the effective date. Court finds no ex post factor
violation. People of the State of Colorado v. Lowe, #01CA1876, 60 P.3d 753
(Colo. App. 2002). [N/R]
"Booking fee" charged to inmate
returning to county jail for new sentencing hearing violated his right to equal
protection of the law and substantive due process when the same fee was not
charged to inmates returning to the county jail from state prisons in order to
testify in court proceedings. Joseph v. Henderson, #2D01-5256, 2003 Fla. App.
Lexis 207 (2003). [2003 JB Mar.]
Oklahoma trial court could properly require
plaintiff inmate who filed four lawsuits against prison personnel for alleged
violation of his claimed "constitutional right" to smoke to make
partial payments of court filing fees over time but could not, under state law,
require him to make a payment in any month where that payment would
"completely deplete" the prisoner's inmate account. Mahorney v.
Moore, No. 96,726, 50 P.3d 1128 (Okla. 2002). [N/R]
Federal appeals court rules that seizure of funds
in prisoner's account derived from his veteran's disability benefit check to
pay a court-ordered fine violated his rights under a federal statute. Court
also rules that doing so without a pre-deprivation hearing could violate due
process and that the prisoner's rights were enforceable under a federal civil
rights statute. Higgins v. Beyer, #99-5556, 293 F.3d 683 (3rd Cir. 2002). [2002
JB Nov]
Prison officials violated a federal statute
protecting veteran's benefits from attachment by creditors by placing a hold on
an inmate's trust account which was funded by such benefits, in order to pay
for goods and services that prisoner had purchased at a time when the funds
were not yet in the account; defendant officials were entitled to qualified
immunity from damages because of the lack of prior court decisions on the
subject. Nelson v. Heiss, No. 00-55523, 271 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 2001). [2002
JB Apr]
Sending notice of a proposed forfeiture of
property to an incarcerated prisoner via certified mail in care of the prison
where he was incarcerated is adequate to satisfy due process of law when the
prison had a procedure for delivering mail to inmates; the government must only
attempt to provide actual notice, there is no requirement that actual notice
must be received. Dusenbery v. United States, No. 00-6567, 2002 U.S. LEXIS 401.
[2002 JB Feb]
Pretrial detainees could proceed with due
process, equal protection, and Fourth Amendment challenges to Ohio county
program requiring them to reimburse government for confinement costs and
booking fees. Allen v. Leis, No. C-1-00-261, 154 F. Supp. 2d 1240 (S.D. Ohio
2001). [2002 JB Feb]
284:116 New Jersey Supreme Court rejects
employer's argument that it could fire a prison nurse for circumventing the
"chain of command" in complaining to her supervisor's supervisor of
inmates being provided with medicine and medical services without being charged
a legally required co-payment and being provided with medication under expired
doctor's orders; further proceedings ordered on nurse's
"whistleblowing" lawsuit. Fleming v. Correctional Healthcare
Solutions, Inc., 164 N.J. 90, 751 A.2d 1035 (2000).
286:151 Federal appeals court holds that
Washington state statute properly authorized the deduction, from inmates'
outside income, including pension plan income, of up to 35% of incoming funds
to pay for crime victim restitution and the cost of incarceration; trial court
ruling that certain federal benefits could not be seized under the statute
undisturbed on appeal. Wright v. Riveland, No. 97-36074, 219 F.3d 905 (9th Cir.
2000).
281:75 Orthodox Jewish prisoners who were sincere
in their religious beliefs were entitled to receive a kosher diet; proposed
policy under which they would be required to make a co-payment of 25% of the
cost was an unreasonable burden on their exercise of their religion. Beerheide
v. Suthers, 82 F. Supp. 2d 1190 (D. Colo. 2000).
278:22 Minnesota prison did not err in deducting
court filing fee from prisoner's inmate account rather than from his gross
wages in prison work program; agreement prisoner signed in order to be in work
program manufacturing goods for sale in interstate commerce, which mentioned
deductions that could be made from his pay, was not an enforceable
"contract." Murray v. Minncor, No. C3- 99-376, 506 N.W.2d 702 (Minn.
App. 1999).
279:39 Subtracting funds from inmate account for
medical treatment of officer prisoner injured did not violate his
constitutional rights when Pennsylvania state law provided a process by which
the inmate could assert his claim that this use of the funds was improper.
Payton v. Horn, 49 F. Supp. 2d 791 (E.D. Pa. 1999).
283:103 Portion of sentence imposing $140 in
restitution on prisoner incarcerated for breaking and entering authorized the
immediate deduction of amounts from his prison account; Michigan appeals court
rejects the argument that the restitution order should be stayed until the prisoner
was paroled or discharged. White-Bey v. Corrections Dept., #213395, 608 N.W.2d
833 (Mich. App. 1999).
266:22 Nebraska prisoner had no constitutionally
protected property right in the full amount of the salary he earned under
work-release program; prison officials did not do anything improper in
withdrawing $2,790 from his account to pay for the cost of his confinement.
Christiansen v. Clarke, #97-1511, 147 F.3d 655 (8th Cir. 1998).
271:101 Prisoner was properly assessed some costs
of medical treatment of other inmate and correctional officer required because
of his misconduct; Pennsylvania statute, however, limited assessment of other
inmate's medical expenses to two-thirds. Anderson v. Horn, 723 A.2d 254 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1998).
[N/R] Prisoners' federal civil rights claim over
alleged improper seizure of their bond funds for reimbursement of expenses of
their incarceration in county jail was not barred by state statute providing a
post- deprivation remedy, as a pre-deprivation hearing could have been
provided. Mudge v. Macomb Co., 580 N.W.2d 845 (Mich. 1998).
259:99 Warden's action of applying all of the
funds prisoner received from his mother to pay part of prisoner's restitution
obligation, even if it violated Iowa state law, was not a due process
violation; further, warden was entitled to qualified immunity, since it was not
clearly established law at the time of the withholding that the action was
wrongful. Parrish v. Mallinger, 133 F.3d 612 (8th Cir. 1998).
256:62 While there is no constitutional right to
prison employment, inmate stated a federal civil rights claim by alleging that
he was fired from prison job in retaliation for refusal to sign an agreement
waiving a property right to interest earned on his inmate fund account. Vignolo
v. Miller, 120 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 1997).
257:70 Charging Florida pre-trial detainees for
medical and dental treatment, as well as for meals, did not violate any rights
under state statutes or the Florida state Constitution. Williams v. Ergle, 698
So.2d 1294 (Fla. App. 1997).
[N/R] Requirement that prisoner pay for part of
the cost of his incarceration at private halfway house did not violate his
right to due process. Gleave v. Graham, 954 F.Supp. 599 (W.D.N.Y. 1997).
244:62 N.Y. prison regulations setting aside some
prisoner wages until prisoners are released did not violate any constitutional
rights; federal court also upholds regulations imposing a $5 surcharge on such
wages after prisoners are found guilty, following a disciplinary hearing, of
infractions of prison rules. Rudolph v. Cuomo, 916 F.Supp. 1308 (S.D.N.Y.
1996).
245:67 Policy requiring prisoners to pay for the
cost of long distance calls for participation in telephonic court conferences,
provided prisoners have the ability to pay, did not constitute an
unconstitutional denial of the right of access to the courts. Shannon v.
Singletary, 678 So.2d 466 (Fla. App. 1996).
246:84 Prisoner's claim that jail improperly
debited their inmate trust accounts for payment for medical services and
prescription drugs, despite their indigency, did not state a constitutional due
process claim when an adequate post- deprivation remedy existed under Texas
state law to seek reimbursement of the funds. Myers v. Klevenhagen, 97 F.3d 91
(5th Cir. 1996).
247:104 Regulation that classified inmates with
access to funds from outside family and friends as "non-indigent,"
and required them to pay fees for legal photocopying and medical co- payments,
did not violate their equal protection or due process rights. Robinson v.
Fauver, 932 F.Supp. 639 (D.N.J. 1996).
248:127 Update: Federal appeals court affirms
trial court ruling upholding N.Y. prison regulations setting aside some
prisoner wages until prisoners are released, and imposing $5 surcharge on such
wages after prisoners are found guilty of disciplinary offenses. Allen v.
Cuomo, 100 F.3d 253 (2nd Cir. 1996).
236:118 Decision to withhold funds from
prisoner's account when left by visitor who did not sign her name on envelope
containing money could not form basis for prisoner's due process claim when he
failed to allege that available state law post- deprivation remedies were
inadequate. Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F.3d 476 (6th Cir. 1995).
Inmates with earnings may be required to pay
filing fees before being allowed to proceed with lawsuits. Prows v. Kastner,
842 F.2d 138 (5th Cir. 1988).
Court holds that state may not seize prisoner's
social security benefits to pay cost of imprisonment. Bennett v. Arkansas, No.
86-6124, 42 CrL 3101 (March 30, 1988).
New York's highest court orders county to house
all parole violators arrested within the county. Nassau Co. v. Cuomo, 504
N.E.2d 689 (N.Y. 1987).
Co. must pay for hospital treatment exceeding
jail sentence, only upon a showing that the extended treatment was necessary.
Saint Barnabas Medical Center v. Williams, 523 A.2d 248 (N.J. Super. 1987).
Co.'s suit against state for reimbursement
dismissed. Co. of Monroe v. State, 495 N.Y.S.2d 643 (Ct. Cl. 1985).
Citizens lack standing to challenge bonds for
prison construction. N.Y. St. Coalition for Crim. Jus. v. Coughlin, 474 N.E.2d
607 (N.Y. 1984).
Single justice has power to order specifications
in jail construction. Attorney General v. Sheriff of Suffolk Co., 477 N.E.2d
361 (Mass. 1985).
Discussion of who pays medical costs. Craven Co.
Hosp. Corp. v. Lenoir Co., 331 S.E.2d 690 (N.C. App. 1985).
Court interprets statute as imposing duty on
sheriff, not hospital to pay medical costs. Health and Hosp. Corp. v. Marion
Co., 470 N.E.2d 1348 (Ind. App. 1984).
Cities have legal duty to pay county for housing
prisoners who city ordinances. Utah Co. v. Orem City, 699 P.2d 707 (Utah,
1985).
Co. liable for medical costs of prisoners housed
by city. University Emergency Serv. v. City of Detroit, 367 N.W.2d 344 (Mich.
App. 1984).
Co., not hospital, must pay medical costs of
prisoner's suicide. Harrison Memorial Hosp. v. Kitsap Co., 700 P.2d 732 (Wash.
1985).
Co. commissioners, not sheriff have budget authority.
Burks v. Lane Co., 695 P.2d 1373 (Or. App. 1985).
Voters approve that inmates pay their costs of
confinement. Opinion No. 84-16. Proposition J, June 5, 1984, San Francisco, CA.
Co. need only provide for inmate's medical
treatment, not pay for it. Smith v. Linn county, 342 N.W.2d 861 (Iowa 1984).
State does not have to always share costs
associated with inmate's appearance for federal claims; U.S. Marhsal ordered to
bear responsibility. Ford v. Allen, 728 F.2d 1369 (11th Cir. 1984).
New legislation for privately operated jails. In
the Public Interest, 9/84, Office of the Attorney General.
Jail officials contempt of court fines used to
post bail for pretrial detainees to eliminate overcrowding. Mobile Co. Jail
Inmates v. Purvis, 581 F.Supp. 222 (S.D. Ala. 1984).
Agency in custody of inmate responsible for
medical costs, regardless of nature of crime committed. Cuyahoga Co. Hosp. v.
City of Cleveland, 472 N.E.2d 757 (Ohio App. 1984).
New prisons can be built outside county seat. The
Township of McFarland v. Parkhouse, 482 A.2d 1177 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).
Corrections officers sued by inmate entitled to
private counsel of their choice at state's expense. Spitz v. Ahrams, 472
N.Y.S.2d 931 (Albany Co. 1984).
State must pay costs for woman giving birth at
county jail. Wilkenson v. State, 667 P.2d 413 (Mont. 1983).
Co. may require reimbursement from city for
housing prisoners charged with or convicted of violating city ordinances. 43 Op
Atty Gen 136, Oregon (1983).
City liable for hospital costs during competency
proceedings; county becomes liable once inmate is ruled incompetent. City of
Phoenix v. Super. Ct., Maricopa Cty., 677 P.2d 1283 (Ariz. 1983).
City not liable for hospitalization costs of
detainee after suicide attempt. City of Plantation v. Humana, Inc., 429 So.2d
37 (Fla. App. 1983).
State prison does not have to immediately accept
convicted detainees from county jail when the delay is reasonable. Co. of
Onondaga v. New York State Department of Correctional Services, 468 N.Y.S.2d
760 (App. 1983).
State, not federal civil rights claims. Wiggins
v. Co. of Alameda, 717 F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1983).
Co., not state, required to pay costs of
transporting state prisoner from Minnesota to Wisconsin for legal proceedings.
State v. Struzik, 335 N.W.2d 432 (Wis. App. 1983).
State liable for costs of county female inmate
having baby; she remained in county jail after sentence to state prison so that
baby could be born. Wilkenson v. State, 667 P.2d 413 (Mont. 1983).
Hospitalization costs of individual injured
during arrest are not constitutionally required to be paid by municipality.
City of Revere v. Massachusetts General Hosp. 103 S.Ct. 2979 (1983).
State law on assessing parents for costs of
juvenile detention is invalid. In re Jerald C., 654 P.2d 745, 187 Cal.Rptr. 562
(Cal. 1982).
Sheriff entitled to state mandated increase in
inmate's costs (from $3 a day to $10) even though sheriff is prohibited from
salary increases during term of office. State v. Madison Co. Bd. of Com'rs.,
327 N.W.2d 93 (Neb. 1982).
Florida case holds that state law requires
sheriff to pay hospitalization costs of individual shot and wounded during his
arrest. Hosp. Bd. of Directors of Lee Co. v. Durkis, 426 S. 2d 50 (Fla. App.
1982).
Costs of hospitalization of mental inmate is
assessed against inmate's county of residence. Comm. of Pa. v. Kallinger, 443
A.2d 1219 (Pa. App. 1982).
Michigan court finds that county is not liable
for discharged inmate's injuries which were incurred during his incarceration.
Borgess Hospital v. Co. Berrien, 319 N.W.2d 354 (Mich. App. 1982).
Lack of county funds cannot be permitted to stand
in way of eliminating prison conditions which violate constitutional standards.
Heitman v. Gabriel, 524 F.Supp. 622 (W.D. Mo. 1981); Lock v. Jenkins, 641 F.2d
488 (7th Cir. 1981).
Costs of transporting prisoners to be paid by
city. City of Newburch v. Co. of Orange, 430 N.Y.S.2d 537 (App. 1980).
Illinois federal court rules against inmate suit
alleging insufficient staff (guards). Madyun v. Thompson, 484 F.Supp. 619 (7th
Cir. 1980).
Co.'s custom of underfunding jail which results
in sexual assaults of inmates can form basis of liability under Civil Rights
Act. Mayes v. Elrod, 470 F.Supp. 1188 (N.D. Ill. 1979).