Robert Morris v. Brad Livingston, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 557

Background

Plaintiff Robert Morris, a Texas prison inmate since 2005, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging Texas Gov’t Code § 501.063, which imposes a $100 annual health-care services fee on any inmate who initiates a visit to a health-care provider.
The statute (amended 2011) removed prior statutory exemptions and increased the fee from $3 to $100; TDCJ posted notices and later promulgated an administrative directive listing exemptions not found in the statute.
Morris alleges ongoing knee/chronic-care needs requiring prescription renewals and asserts the fee forces inmates to choose between medical care and basic necessities; he sued Governor Rick Perry (later substituted with Brad Livingston, TDCJ executive director).
District court dismissed Perry (Eleventh Amendment/Ex parte Young issue), denied preliminary injunctive relief, and dismissed the complaint on the merits for failure to state a constitutional claim; Morris appealed.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding (inter alia) that Morris failed to plead Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference, that notice/process was adequate for due process purposes, that the seizure/deduction was reasonable, and that Perry was not a proper Ex parte Young defendant.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Governor Perry was a proper official-capacity defendant under Ex parte Young	Perry is Morris’s legal guardian and thus subject to suit	§ 501.063 is enforced by TDCJ, not the Governor; Eleventh Amendment bars suit against Governor in official capacity	Dismissal affirmed: Perry not specially charged with enforcing § 501.063; substitute TDCJ director was proper
Eighth Amendment — denial of/impediment to medical care	$100 annual fee (and loss of trust-fund money) effectively denies care or forces choice between care and basic necessities	Fee does not deny care; statute expressly forbids denying care for inability to pay; deductions and reserve rules protect some funds	Affirmed: no deliberate indifference alleged; no showing inmates were denied or delayed care or forced to choose necessities over care
Fourteenth Amendment — procedural due process (notice and post-deprivation remedies)	Posted notice and statute/regulation conflict; inadequate notice and remedies for erroneous assessments	TDCJ posted notice and later issued AD-06.08 requiring notice and sick-call acknowledgement; post-deprivation remedies exist and were used	Affirmed: notice and procedures constitutionally adequate; discrepancy between notice and statute not fatal
Fourth Amendment — unreasonable seizure of trust-fund property	Deduction of funds to pay fee is an unreasonable seizure	Fee is a charge for services (in exchange for medical care) tied to legitimate penological/budgetary interests; post-deprivation remedies exist	Affirmed: taking was reasonable in light of purpose and procedures
Ex Post Facto Clause	Fee increase/policy is punitive and retroactive	Controlling precedent forecloses ex post facto challenge to non-punitive fee	Argument waived/foreclosed; no relief granted

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state plausible claim)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (Eighth Amendment requires provision of medical care to prisoners)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference standard)
City of Revere v. Massachusetts Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239 (1983) (Constitution requires provision of needed care but not allocation of costs)
Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (official-capacity suit is suit against the State)
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (exception to sovereign immunity for state officers enforcing unconstitutional statutes)
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (prison regulation review standard; legitimate penological interest)
Reynolds v. Wagner, 128 F.3d 166 (3d Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to cost-free medical care)