CHESTER LOYDE BIRD v. ROBERT O. LAMPERT
S-20-0149
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING
January 22, 2021
2021 WY 11
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING
2021 WY 11
OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2020
January 22, 2021
CHESTER LOYDE BIRD,
Appellant
(Plaintiff),
v.
ROBERT O. LAMPERT, in his official
capacity as Director of the Wyoming
Department of Corrections,
Appellee
(Defendant).
S-20-0149
Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County
The Honorable Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge
Representing Appellant:
Chester Loyde Bird, pro se.
Representing Appellee:
Bridget Hill, Wyoming Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, Deputy Attorney
General; Joshua C. Eames, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Samuel Williams,
Assistant Attorney General.
Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers
are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming
82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so that correсtion may be made before final publication in
the permanent volume.
[¶1] Chester Loyde Bird is serving concurrent life sentences for crimes he committed
in the 1990s. Mr. Bird filed a pro se complaint under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments
Act, alleging that the Wyoming Department of Corrections (WDOC) inmate
classification policies are rules, and because those rules were not filed with the Secretary
of State, they are invаlid. Therefore, he claims his recent inmate classification is void.
The district court dismissed his complaint. We affirm.
ISSUE
[¶2] Is the WDOC’s inmate classification policy a rule required to be filed with the
Secretary of State?
FACTS
[¶3] In 1994, Mr. Bird pled guilty to kidnapping and first-degree sexual assault. He
wаs adjudicated a habitual criminal and was sentenced to serve two concurrent life
sentences. Bird v. State, 901 P.2d 1123, 1125, 1128 (Wyo. 1995); see also Bird v.
Lampert, 2019 WY 56, 441 P.3d 850 (Wyo. 2019).
[¶4] This matter began in January 2020, when Mr. Bird filed a Complaint for
Declaratory Judgment. He alleged that at his recent annual inmate reclassification, he
scored “minimum custody” but, because he was subject to a “custody classification
override,” he was classified as “medium custody.” This classification caused him to be
ineligible for minimum security housing in facilities such as the Wyoming Honor Farm
or the Honor Conservation Camp.
[¶5] WDOC Policy and Procedure #4.1011 (Policy 4.101), which governs inmate
classifications, was not filed with the Wyoming Secretary of State. Mr. Bird alleged that
WDOC policies and procedures are “rules” and that
requires rules to be filed with the Secretary of State. He claimed the failure to file the
WDOC policies and procedures with the Secretary of State
taken pursuant to them, void. Mr. Bird sought declarations that the WDOC policies and
procedures are unenforceable and that actions taken pursuant to those policies and
procedures “affecting [him] in a negative manner” are “null and void.” He also sought an
injunction prohibiting the WDOC from applying its policies and procedures to him. The
defendаnt, WDOC Director Robert Lampert, filed a motion to dismiss under W.R.C.P.
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. He argued that WDOC’s policies and procedures are
not “rules” as defined by the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Aсt. He also argued,
even if the policies and procedures are “rules,” the failure to file them with the Secretary
of State does not render them void. The district court granted Mr. Lampert’s motiоn to
dismiss, ruling that the WDOC policies and procedures are not rules and therefore, were
not required to be filed. Mr. Bird appeals.
DISCUSSION
I. Is the WDOC’s inmate classification policy a rule required to be filed with the
Secretary of State?
[¶6] The district court held that Policy 4.101 concerns only the internal management of
the institutions under WDOC. It does not affect the public and is not the equivalent of
prescribing law. Therefore, it is exempt from the statutory definition of “rule.” The court
concluded that, because Policy 4.101 is not a rule, it is not invalid even though it was not
filed with the Secretary of State. Mr. Bird argues that the district court was “clearly
wrong” and that WDOC policies and procedurеs are “rules and regulations” under the
express provisions of
the Secretary of State to be effective.2
A. Standard of Review
[¶7] A district court’s dismissal of a complaint for failing to state a claim under
W.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) is reviewed de novo. Whitham v. Feller, 2018 WY 43, ¶ 13, 415 P.3d
1264, 1267 (Wyo. 2018). This Court applies the same standards and examines the same
materials as the district court. Bextel v. Fork Rd. LLC, 2020 WY 134, ¶ 11, 474 P.3d
625, 628–29 (Wyo. 2020) (citing Dockter v. Lozano, 2020 WY 119, ¶ 6, 472 P.3d 362,
364 (Wyo. 2020)). “We accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true and view them
in the light most favorable to [Mr. Bird,] the nonmoving part[y].” Id. “Dismissal is
appropriate if it is certain from the face of the complaint that [Mr. Bird] cannot assert any
fact that would entitle [him] to relief.” Id. Likewise, statutory construction is a question
of law, subject to de novo review. Wyoming Guardianship Corp. v. Wyoming State
Hosp., 2018 WY 114, ¶ 7, 428 P.3d 424, 429 (Wyo. 2018).
[¶8] “When we interpret statutes, our goal is to give effect to the intent of the
legislature, and we ‘attempt to determine the legislature’s intent based primarily on the
plain and ordinary meaning of the words used in the statute.’” Matter of Adoption of
MAJB, 2020 WY 157, ¶ 15, 478 P.3d 196, 201 (Wyo. 2020) (quoting Wyoming Jet Ctr.,
LLC v. Jackson Hole Airport Bd., 2019 WY 6, ¶ 12, 432 P.3d 910, 915 (Wyo. 2019)).
“Where legislative intent is discernible a court should give effect to the ‘most likely, most
reasonablе, interpretation of the statute, given its design and purpose.’” Wyoming Jet
Ctr., ¶ 12, 432 P.3d at 915 (quoting PacifiCorp, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, State, 2017 WY
106, ¶ 10, 401 P.3d 905, 908 (Wyo. 2017) (quoting Adekale v. State, 2015 WY 30, ¶ 12,
344 P.3d 761, 765 (Wyo. 2015))).
We therefore construe each statutory provision in pari
materia, giving effect to every word, clause, and sentence
according to their arrangement and connection. To ascertain
the meaning of a given law, we also consider all statutes
relating to the same subject or having the same general
purpose and strive to interpret them harmoniously. We
presume that the legislature has acted in a thoughtful and
rational
it intended new statutory provisions to be read in harmony
with existing law and as part of an overall and uniform
system of jurisprudence. When the words used convey a
specific and obvious meaning, we need not go farther and
engage in statutory construction.
MAJB, ¶ 15, 478 P.3d at 201 (quoting PacifiCorp, ¶ 10, 401 P.3d at 908–09 (quoting Nicodemus v. Lampert, 2014 WY 135, ¶ 13, 336 P.3d 671, 674 (Wyo. 2014))).
B. Analysis
[¶9] Mr. Bird argues that this Court has already determined Policy 4.101 is a rule that
must be filed according to
inmate claimed that under the WDOC grievance process the WDOC staff had wrongfully
deprived him of property. Cosco, ¶ 3, 229 P.3d at 964. In its discussion, the Court
addressed Mr. Cosco’s use of the grievance process and said that grievance procedures
“are the sort of rules and regulations contemplated by
an inmate grievance is not a matter that may be appealed to the courts.” Id. ¶ 11, 229
P.3d at 967.
[¶10]
provides:
The department of corrections shall adopt rules and
regulations necessary to carry out its functions. The
promulgation of substantive rules by the department, the
conduct of its hearings and its final decisions are
specifically exempt from all provisions of the Wyoming
Administrative Procedure Act including the provisions for
judicial review underW.S. 16-3-144 and 16-3-115 . The
department’s rules shall be filed in the office of the secretary
of state.
[¶11] The Cosco discussion specifically applies to the exemption of WDOC “hearings
and its final decisions” from judicial review. The question of whether the grievance
procedure is a rule or whether the inmate classification policy is a rule as defined by
addressed by the opinion. Mr. Bird’s reliance on Cosco is misplaced.
[¶12]
rules from the Administrative Procedure Act and requires that WDOC rules be filed with
the Secretary of State. It does not, however, define substantive rules. In ascertaining the
meaning of a given law, we consider all statutes relating to the same subject or having the
same general purpose аnd strive to interpret them harmoniously. MAJB, ¶ 15, 478 P.3d at
201 (quoting PacifiCorp, ¶ 10, 401 P.3d at 908–09 (quoting Nicodemus, ¶ 13, 336 P.3d at
674)). The Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act’s definition of a rule and its
exemptions are instructive in determining the meaning of a substantive rule as used in
“statement of general applicability that implements, interprets and prescribes law, policy
or ordinances of cities and towns, or describes the organization, procedures, or practice
requirements of any agency.”3
eight exclusions to the definition of a rule.
[¶13] Policy 4.101 prоvides “guidelines for carrying out inmate classification in
[WDOC] correctional facilities.” The policy “specifies the objectives of the classification
system and methods for achieving them, and provides a monitoring and evaluation
mechanism to determine whether the objectives are being met.” Policy 4.101(I)(A).
While on its face it meets the preliminary definition of a rule, the determinative inquiry is
whether Policy 4.101 falls under one of the eight listed exclusions. Applicable here is the
first of these. “Statements concerning only the internal management of an agency and
not affecting private rights or procedures available to the public” are excluded from the
definition of a rule.
4.101 falls under this exclusion, we examine its conjunctive parts: 1) internal
management; and 2) no effect on private rights or procedures available to the public.
1. Internal Management
[¶14] Policy 4.101 establishes procedures, guidelines and criteria for WDOC staff to
evaluate inmate classifications to ensure the safety and security of inmates and WDOC
facilities. See WDOC Policy 4.101(III)(A). These are matters of internal management.
See, e.g.,
regarding good time allowances “shall at all times be considered rules relating to the
internal management of state penal institutions”); Mares v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 401
F. Supp. 2d 775, 778 (S.D. Tex. 2005) (program-termination decision is exempt from the
notice and commеnt requirement as a general statement of policy); Green v. Nadeau, 70
P.3d 574, 577 (Colo. App. 2003) (“The supervision and management of the internal
procedures of correctional institutions are within the discretion of institutional officials
and not subject to judicial scrutiny absent exceptional circumstances.”). Policy 4.101
addresses internal management of WDOC.
2. No Effect on Private Rights or Procedures Available to the Public
[¶15] Policy 4.101’s objective is “to provide for the impartial objective assessment of
risk, categorization, and efficient management of every inmate in the system.”4 Policy
4.101(IV)(A). The policy does not give an inmate any right to a specific classification.
Indeed, the Tenth Circuit has held that “[c]hanging an inmate’s prison classification
ordinarily does not deprive him of liberty, because he is not entitled to a particular degree
of liberty in prison.” Templeman v. Gunter, 16 F.3d 367, 369 (10th Cir. 1994); see also
Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 2538, 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976) (no
(H) A general permit.
liberty interest in transfer from low to maximum-security prison because “[с]onfinement
in any of the State’s institutions is within the normal limits or range of custody which the
conviction has authorized the State to impose”); Counts v. Wilson, 573 F. App’x 754, 757
(10th Cir. 2014) (“neither Wyoming law nor prison policies and procedures created a
liberty interest in good time credits”); Harbin-Bey v. Rutter, 420 F.3d 571, 577 (6th Cir.
2005) (increase in security classification does not constitute an atypical and significant
hardship because “a prisoner has no constitutional right to remain incarcerated in a
particular prison or to be held in a spеcific security classification”); Hankins v. Miller,
No. 94-1590, 1995 WL 539737, at *1 (10th Cir. Sept. 12, 1995) (defendant had no liberty
interest in prison classification). Mr. Bird has no private right to any classification.
[¶16] Policy 4.101 is not a “procedure[] available to the public.” “Public” is defined as
“[adj.] 1. Of, relating to, or involving an entire community, state, or country. 2. Open or
available for all to use, share, or enjoy.” and “[n.] 1. The people of a country or
community as a whole.” “2. A place open or visible to the public.” Public, Black’s Law
Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). Policy 4.101 applies
WDOC manages. Inmates have been removed from the public to serve their sentences of
incarceration. See Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822–23, 94 S.Ct. 2800, 2804, 41
L.Ed.2d 495 (1974) (recognizing distinction between “prison inmates and members of the
general public beyond the prison walls” and that isolation of criminal offenders from
society is a deterrent to criminal conduct); Whitfield v. State, 781 P.2d 913, 918 (Wyo.
1989) (public safety is a justification for prison sentence).
[¶17] Policy 4.101 relates to internal management and does not affect private rights or
prоcedures available to the public. It is excluded from the Administrative Procedure
Act’s definition of a rule.
is not a rule, WDOC was not required to file it with the Secretary of State’s office.
Stat. Ann. § 25-1-105
[¶18] Mr. Bird has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The district
court’s dismissal under W.R.C.P. 12(b) is affirmed.
Notes
2019).
WDOC policies and procedures. Generally, we will not consider issues not raised below and we decline
to do so here. See Williams v. Tharp, 2017 WY 8, ¶¶ 10–11, 388 P.3d 513, 517 (Wyo. 2017).
(ix) “Rule” means each agency statement of general applicability that
implements, interprets and prescribes law, policy or ordinances of cities
and towns, or describes the organization, procedures, or practice
requirements of any agency. The term includes the amendment or repeal
of a prior rule, but does not include:
(A) Statements concerning only the internal management of an
agency and not affecting private rights or procedures available to the
public; or
(B) Rulings issued pursuant to W.S. 16-3-106; or
(C) Intraagency memoranda; or
(D) Agency decisions and findings in contested cases; or
(E) Rules concerning the use of public roads or facilities which are
indicated to the public by means of signs and signals; or
(F) Ordinances of cities and towns; or
(G) Designations under W.S. 9-2-1022(h)(i); or
procedures in handling the inmate classification” and “whether the resulting classification decision is in
compliance with the classification plan.” WDOC Policy 4.101(IV)(L)(5) & (M)(5).