Monthly Law Journal Article: Prison Work Release Programs, 2011 (12) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.

     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.
     An Illinois prisoner with hip problems, including necrosis, asserted viable disability discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act based on his alleged disqualification from a work-release program (because he walked with a cane) and the lack of grab bars in the prison, which he claimed made it difficult for him to use the toilet and shower, to attend meals, or to work in the prison library on the same basis as other prisoners. While these problems did not violate the Eighth Amendment since he did manage to do many of these things, even if with difficulty, the failure to reasonably accommodate his disability could be unlawful discrimination. Limiting him to weekly showers was not an Eighth Amendment violation. Jaros v. Illinois Department of Corrections, #11-2567, 684 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2012).
    A prisoner's lawsuit over his denial of participation in a work release program should be dismissed as he had not shown that he had any constitutional or statutory right to participate in such a program. Joseph v. Nelson Correctional Center, #09-7670, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 122356 (E.D. La.).
     While participation in a New York state temporary work release program was a privilege, rather than a right, a prisoner could pursue her claim that the state Department of Corrections violated its own rules when it allegedly failed to have the superintendent of her facility review her application for participation, Nesbitt v. Goord, 813 N.Y.S.2d 897 (Sup. Albany County 2006). [N/R]
     Removal of New York prisoner from work release program for use of cocaine without providing him with notice and a hearing violated his due process rights. Conviction of drug use in separate disciplinary hearing did not automatically result in removal, and committee still had discretion to continue his participation. Individual defendants, however, were entitled to qualified immunity from liability, as they could have reasonably believed that the disciplinary conviction was sufficient and that no separate hearing on the removal was required. Anderson v. Goorde, No. 05-4096, 446 F.3d 324 (2nd Cir. 2006). [2006 JB Sep]
     New York inmate suspended from work release program was not denied due process when he was granted an appearance before a temporary release committee and advised of a confidential investigation which could result in felony charges against him, and the prison's superintendent subsequently determined, on the basis of the committee's recommendation, that his continued participation in work release was "inconsistent with public safety." People ex rel. Adler v. Beaver, 785 N.Y.S.2d 226 (A.D. 4th Dept. 2004). [N/R]
     Establishment of new guidelines governing security classifications, work release, and family leave were not unconstitutional "ex post facto" laws increasing prisoners' punishment retroactively. They were not laws, but merely guidelines promulgated as an exercise of discretion and correctional officials had the authority to modify them. Watkins v. Secretary, Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, No. 118, 831 A.2d 1079 (Md. 2003). [N/R]
     Removal of New York prisoner from work release program violated his right to procedural due process when he did not receive advance notice of the hearing, information about the evidence to be used against him, and an opportunity to present an opposing point of view. Kroemer v. Joy, 769 N.Y.S.2d 357 (Sup. 2003). [2004 JB Mar]
     Revocation of prisoner's approval to participate in work release program without a hearing did not violate his due process rights, since any such approval was conditional under New York state law until his actual work release began. Caban v. N.Y. State Department of Correctional Services, 764 N.Y.S.2d 493 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2003). [N/R]
     Prisoner could state a claim for retaliatory transfer for having filed a grievance against an officer based on a sequence of events from which a retaliatory motive could be inferred, without proving motivation in the complaint. Illinois prisoner had a protected liberty interest in continued participation in work release program which could not be ended without due process. Segreti v. Gillen, 259 F. Supp. 2d 733 (N.D. Ill. 2003). [2003 JB Oct]
     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]
     Pennsylvania prisoner did not have a protected liberty interest in a work release assignment under either the due process clause of the 14th Amendment or Pennsylvania state law, which barred him from pursuing a lawsuit that prison officials violated his rights by removing him from the work release program with either notice or a hearing. McGoue v. Janecka, 211 F. Supp. 2d 627 (E.D. Pa. 2002). [N/R]
     296:126 Correctional officials were entitled to qualified immunity from liability for removal of prisoner from New York work release program in 1994, when his right to be in the program was not clearly established, but not entitled to such immunity for removing him from the program again in 1997, when his right to a pre-removal hearing was clear. Aupperlee v. Coughlin, 97 F. Supp. 2d 336 (E.D.N.Y. 2000).
     279:46 New York prisoner had a protected liberty interest in participation in a work release program that allowed her to live at home; "technical" violation of requirement that she have notice of a hearing to consider her removal from the program only entitled her to $1 in nominal damages when she had no real basis for contesting her removal. Kim v. Hurston, No. 98-7051, 182 F.3d 113 (2nd Cir. 1999).
     270:94 Prisoner removed from work release program without an opportunity to be heard after being arrested for driving while intoxicated could not pursue federal civil rights claim alleging violation of due process when his removal from program was repeatedly upheld in prior administrative proceedings and state court hearings. Roucchio v. Coughlin, 29 F.Supp.2d 72 (E.D.N.Y. 1998).
     274:158 Jail did not violate any right of prisoner when it failed to process him for participation in work release program; sentence provided an "okay" for work release, but did not mandate it, and prisoner had no protected constitutional right to participation in program. Carter v. McCaleb, 29 F.Supp.2d 423 (W.D. Mich. 1998).
     251:174 State of Oklahoma was immune from liability for injuries prisoner suffered while fighting fire during participation in work release program. Horton v. State of Oklahoma, 915 P.2d 352 (Okl. 1996).
     251:174 Change in eligibility for temporary release programs did not violate prisoners' constitutional rights; prisoners had no constitutional right to participation. Lee v. Governor of State of New York, 87 F.3d 55 (2nd Cir. 1996).
     233:78 New York statute barring convicted killers from participating in prison work release program did not violate prisoner's right to equal protection of law or increase his punishment. Vargas v. Pataki, 899 F.Supp. 96 (N.D.N.Y. 1995).
     238:159 Revocation of sex offender's participation in work release program did not violate any due process liberty interest. Dominique v. Weld, 73 F.3d 1156 (1st Cir. 1996).
     224:126 State was entitled to absolute immunity, under N.J. state law, from liability for alleged attack and rape by inmate on work release. Ornes v. Daniels, 651 A.2d 1040 (N.J. Super. A.D. 1995).
     222:94 New York inmate was properly denied work release so long as denial was not "affected by irrationality, bordering on impropriety." Grant v. Temporary Release Committee, 619 N.Y.S.2d 106 (A.D. 1994).