Reedy v. Werholtz
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22663
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs are inmates challenging two Kansas Department of Corrections IMPP policies that require compulsory savings from inmate funds.
- IMPP 04-103 imposes a 10% mandatory savings contribution from outside funds into a forced savings account, with limited pre-release use and estate transfer on death.
- IMPP 04-109 requires ongoing deposit of a portion of earnings into a mandatory savings account for inmates employed in work programs.
- Plaintiffs claim violations of private-property rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, vagueness, cruel-and-unusual punishment, and ex post facto principles.
- District court dismissed; plaintiffs appealed reaffirming dismissal; the court affirmed the district court’s ruling.
- Court addresses exhaustion under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and distinguishes lifers from release-eligible prisoners for due-process analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lifers’ claims were exhausted under PLRA. | Lifers challenge compulsory savings; may be exhausted via class-wide or individual grievances. | No exhausted claim by lifers since no lifer grievance raising the issue. | Lif ers’ claims not exhausted; court declines addressing lifer merits. |
| Whether release-eligible prisoners’ compulsory savings violate substantive due process. | Savings policy lacks rational relation to penological interests. | Policy rationally related to preparing inmates for release. | Policy for release-eligible prisoners is rationally related to legitimate penological interests; no due-process violation. |
| Whether the district court erred in rejecting other constitutional challenges (unconstitutional conditions, etc.). | Consent or conditions violated by requiring signing of funds-withholding contracts. | No constitutional-rights affected; no unconstitutional-condition claim. | Rejected; no reversible error on these grounds. |
| Whether procedural due process was properly addressed for the challenged savings. | Procedural due process due to property interest in wages. | District court assumed property interest but did not address, and the court does not revisit. | Court narrows to substantive due-process and exhaustion; procedural point not reached on appeal. |
| Whether other issues raised were abandoned or not properly briefed. | Not all issues briefed asserted. | Underscored lack of argument; waived on appeal. | Abandoned issues are not considered on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126 (U.S. 2003) (substantive due process limited by rational relation to penological interests)
- Camuglia v. City of Albuquerque, 448 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2006) (requires protectable property interest and due-process hearing components)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (U.S. 2007) (PLRA exhaustion requirement; inmate claims must be exhausted)
- Kelley v. City of Albuquerque, 542 F.3d 802 (10th Cir. 2008) (treats procedural due-process considerations in related contexts)
- Alpine Bank v. Hubbell, 555 F.3d 1097 (10th Cir. 2009) (affirmative basis to affirm on any record-supported ground)
- Sperry v. Werholtz, 321 Fed. Appx. 775 (10th Cir. 2009) (compulsory-savings policy upheld as related to release)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1972) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings; standards for briefing)