AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Monthly Law Journal Article: Legal Issues Pertaining to Inmate Funds, 2008 (4) AELE Mo. L.J. 301.
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).