Roger Hawes v. William Stephens
964 F.3d 412
| 5th Cir. | 2020Background:
- Plaintiff Roger Hawes, a Texas inmate who receives VA benefits, had a $100 annual medical copayment deducted from his inmate trust account in December 2015.
- Hawes alleges the deduction violated 38 U.S.C. § 5301(a) (which protects VA benefits from attachment) and related Treasury regulation 31 C.F.R. § 212, and sued two TDCJ directors and a UTMB practice manager (Pamela Pace) under § 1983 seeking reimbursement, damages, and injunctive/declaratory relief.
- The magistrate judge recommended, and the district court adopted, summary judgment for the defendants; Hawes appealed.
- The court assumed arguendo that § 5301(a) may be enforced via § 1983 but analyzed the merits and procedural claims instead of resolving the § 1983 question definitively.
- The record showed VA deposits, transfers from an outside credit-union account, and private deposits commingled in Hawes’s inmate account, making it impossible to identify whether the $100 was taken from VA funds.
- The court also addressed related claims: applicability of § 212 (a Treasury regulation), use of VA funds for PLRA filing-fee calculations, and due-process/grievance claims against prison officials.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the $100 copayment deduction violated 38 U.S.C. § 5301(a) | Hawes: Deduction took VA benefit funds and violated § 5301(a) | TDCJ: Funds were commingled; cannot identify VA funds; no protected taking | Summary judgment for defendants — Hawes cannot show deduction came from VA payments, so § 5301(a) claim fails |
| Whether 31 C.F.R. § 212 applies when a non‑financial institution (TDCJ) assesses the deduction | Hawes: § 212 procedures should govern and protect his funds | Defs: § 212 applies only to chartered financial institutions; TDCJ is not covered | Court: § 212 is limited to financial institutions and does not create a private cause of action against TDCJ; analysis proceeded without relying on § 212 |
| Whether VA benefits may be considered in assessing PLRA filing fees | Hawes: VA benefits are exempt and should not be used to calculate initial partial filing fee | Defs: Statutory filing-fee requirements apply; nothing in § 5301(a) exempts payees from fee rules or from considering assets when determining IFP status | Held: Filing fees properly assessed; VA benefits can be considered for PLRA fee calculations |
| Whether prison grievance handling and Pace’s investigation violated due process | Hawes: Grievance process and Pace’s response denied him due process and failed to protect his § 5301(a) rights | Defs: Texas provides adequate postdeprivation remedies; prisoners have no federal right to a particular grievance outcome | Held: No due process violation — adequate postdeprivation remedies in Texas; grievance claims against Pace fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (frivolous-suit standard for dismissal)
- Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (postdeprivation remedy doctrine)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (unauthorized deprivation cured by adequate postdeprivation remedies)
- Morris v. Livingston, 739 F.3d 740 (prisoners’ property interest in trust accounts and due-process analysis)
- Myers v. Klevenhagen, 97 F.3d 91 (availability of Texas postdeprivation remedies for inmates)
- Murphy v. Collins, 26 F.3d 541 (Texas remedies for inmate property claims)
- Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371 (no federal right to favorable grievance outcomes)
- Austin v. Kroger Tex., L.P., 864 F.3d 326 (summary-judgment standard)