Ronald Mahers v. Sally C. Halford, 76 F.3d 951

Ronald Mahers v. Sally C. Halford

76 F.3d 951

8th Cir.

1996

Check Treatment

*1 admittedly compared to the safe abstract However, disre-

оperation of motor vehicles. courts, jurisdiction of tribal

garding the self-govern- play a vital role tribal

ment, undermines their over reser- imperils and to that extent

vation affairs integrity of the tribe.

political reasons, I would affirm the or-

For these holding of the district court the tribal

der subject jurisdiction

court has matter over tort action

this reservation-based between

non-tribal members. MAHERS, Plaintiff/Appellee A.

Ronald

Sally HALFORD, Chandler

Defendant/Appellant.

Gary SNOW, Plaintiff/Appellee, Dean HUNDLEY; Sally

Thomas Chandler

Halford; McVeigh, Ruth

Defendants/Appellants.

Roger HOFF, Gene VAN

Plaintiff/Appellee, HUNDLEY, Defendant/Appellant.

Thomas Ray MABRIER, Ralph Meyer, Jody

Scott Stokes, Johnson, Jimmey

L. Kannis Lee

Cook, Clark; A. Mid William E. James

dleswart, Reed, Plaintiffs/Ap Nathan D.

pellees, DEPARTMENT

IOWA OF CORREC

TIONS, Sally Halford, Chandler Charles

Lee, Thalacker, Burns, John Mona Ste Wolmutt, Defendants/Appellants.

ven

No. 95-1516. Appeals,

United States Court of

Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 1995.

Decided Feb. 1996.

WOLLMAN, Judge. Circuit prison appeal officials from the Defendant enjoining order them from district court’s deduc- withholding court-ordered restitution funds inmates receive from out- tions ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍from providing an individual- sidе sources without requiring and pre-deprivation ized repay money that was the defendants previously deducted without a I. requires virtually all inmates con-

Iowa law restitution to crime victed Iowa to victim(s) costs, court and to the state cover attorney or the ex- court-appointed fees penses public defender. Iowa Code of a § 910.2 Pursuant to Iowa Code 910.3, § order a amount of Iowa courts set sentencing. restitution at the time of Department of Correc- Director Iowa (“the Department”) then has a restitu- tions prepared pursuant to section 910.5(1). An inmate have his restitution plan reviewed the Iowa District Court at his incarceration. Iowa Code 910.7. spring

In the began automatically applying twenty percent by an of all received inmate toward obligations. This inmate’s restitution only money deduction included not received wages, from but also received family such as from outside sources friends. This case is about the collection of twenty percent from outside sources. charting begin with a timeline the stat- utory procedural history to this relevant case. Before March pris- from deducted restitution inmates’ is, money in- on allowances—that from the mates earned while either from working pay. Depart- When the or from idle began deducting from ment Humphrey, Assistant Attor- Robin Andrew sources, several inmates filed outside Moines, Iowa, General, ney argued, for Des alleging suit that the deductions denied them appellant. Iowa process due and had no basis under Mears, Iowa, City, argued, Philip B. law. appellee. for authority Department asserted as De- BOWMAN, HEANEY, partment policy number Before amended, WOLLMAN, authorized deductions for Judges. Circuit to an payments pay- credits ment had to deduct restitution policy exempted from ments from account. The funds inmates receive from out- inmate’s sources, money given to side an inmate for use inmates are entitled as a matter of purpose, to a specific for a such as medical costs one-time informal opportunity objections, op- state their trip expenses. or funeral *3 portunity that the place state as alternate au- The claimed provide. time did not Walters v. (IAC) thority Administrative Code rule Grossheim, (Iowa 1994). 525 N.W.2d 830 201-20.11, was also in effect at the which legislature legislation, The Iowa enacted provided time of suit and which that credits 1,1995, July provides, part, effective to an inmate’s account from outside sources that: criminal could be deducted for [t]he director shall deduct from an inmate inmate, with authorization from the a court account an amount established the in- order, apprоval warden/superin- or from the plan payment.... of tendent. Written notice of the amount of the deduc- The court referred the to a district case given inmate, tion shall be to the who shall magistrate judge for recommendations. days receipt have five after of the notice to magistrate judge found that had IN-V-106 in writing any objections submit and all properly promulgated not the been under director, the deductions to the who shall rule-making provisions of the Iowa Adminis- objections prior consider the to transmit- Having trative Procedures Act. found the ting the deducted amount to the clerk of invalid, policy magistrate judge conclud- give the district court. The director need unnecessary ed that it was to determine only appeal one nоtice for each action or provide pre-depriva- a whether the failure periodic for which deductions are to be process tion due clause. made. 12, 1994, On October the district court (West Supp.1995). See Iowa Code 904.702 inmates, granted summary judgment for the compliance In with the district court’s or- adopting magistrate judge’s report der, 30, 1994, after June the defendants recommendation, modifying but it to consider making ceased deductions from funds ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍re- process the due issue. The district court Thus, ceived from outside sources. the time claiming noted that the defendants also were period relevant to the inmates’ claims falls authority to make restitution deductions un- 1992, between March when the deductions Presuming der IAC rule 201-20.11. the va- began, and June when ceased. rule, lidity of the the district court held that During year period, the second of for this pre-deprivation notice and an informal hear- largely litigation, reasons unrelated to this ing required. specify were The court did money collected for restitution was escrowed. type hearing required of or whether indi- During two-year period, this the defendants hearings vidual the case of engaged in an of across-the-board de- receiving weekly monthly those or ducting twenty percent from all re- payments. installment any ceived from outside sources. At February On the district court period petition this an inmate could judgment, an amended which re- entered the court under Iowa Code section 910.7for a quires the defendants to restore im- hearing аny on matter related to his restitu- accounts, properly plaintiffs’ taken from en- payment plan. or joins application them from further legislation requiring a Because the 1995 enjoins applying them from pre-deprivation hearing cures Iowa law of IAC rule 201-20.11 to deduct from outside any potential process problems, providing sources without first notice and at question prospective relief is moot. We pre-deprivation process. least informal retroac- need review the district court’s 1994, requiring

In tive order to reim- December held, parallel brought by prisoners a was taken Court case a burse whose order, inmate, although Depart- reviewing this different without (1977). Thus, inmates are enti- that L.Ed.2d 152 the inmates’ claim address we will not they can be de- improperly promulgat- process tled to due policy IN-V-106 was contests, law, question to be party prived neither of these monies. ed under Iowa question, the did not is what is due before mon- court answered and the district ap- 201- ey under IAC rule sources can be received from outside plied toward an inmate’s restitution obli- 10.11. Eldridge, 424 gations. Mathews II. (1976), instructs addressing to bаlance three factors when us grant court’s review the district 1) private question: interest novo, such applying judgment de summary 2) action; official will be affected district court. Roth v. as the same standard *4 deprivation Inc., 707, risk of an erroneous of such Fleet, 25 F.3d Lakes U.S.S. Great used, and the Cir.1994). terest (8th Summary judgment is 708 probable value of additional or substitute genuine is no when there appropriate 3) procedures; government’s inter- moving party is fact and the issue of material est, including function involved and the Id. judgment as a matter of law. entitled to burdens that disputes, confine our fiscal and administrative Finding no factual we law, whether, procedural require- as a matter of additional or substitute to discussion 335, process by the Id. at 96 at deprived of due ment would еntail. S.Ct. inmates were 903; Washington Harper, policy of see also v. 494 across-the-board de 210, 1028, money 178 received 110 S.Ct. 108 L.Ed.2d ducting twenty percent from U.S. (1990) prison- to (applying sources. Mathews factors by inmates from outside prison policy). attack on a er’s due validity attack the The inmates do not they obligations. Nor do their restitution pri first address the inmates’ We constitutionality applying por attack the money they vate interest in the receive from pay” prison wages or “idle to tion of their Although outside sources. incarceration obligations. ward those deprive prisoners protection does not (8th Barlow, F.2d 494 Cir. Buckley v. 997 Constitution, “simply of the United States 1993) in of one-half of (upholding deduction retain certain consti because inmatеs pay pursuant disciplinary to com mate’s idle rights tutional does not mean that these Farrier, order); Hrbek v. mittee’s restitution rights subject are not to restrictions and (8th Cir.1986) (holding that 787 F.2d 414 520, Wolfish, 441 limitations.” Bell v. constitutionally protected inmates have no 545, 1861, 1877, 99 S.Ct. prison). in wages in earned while interest underlying purposes Because of the Instead, they argue money cannot be penal system, many рrivileges of our source donations to satis taken from outside rights withdrawn or limited incar are providing an fy obligations without first those 546, at 1877. ceration. Id. 99 S.Ct. ostensibly hearing, to deter individualized money important an mine whether the is for Although private the inmates’ interest purpose exempt render it that should apparent, personal in their funds is inmates They contend that an across- dеductions. complete are not entitled to control over twenty percent from the-board deduction- of money prison. their while in See Foster v. money entering prison violates accounts (inmates (8th Cir.1992) Hughes, 979 F.2d 130 the Due Process Clause. right place to do not have a constitutional agree with the district court accounts); money interest-bearing their propеrty have a interest (8th Gunter, Blankenship F.2d 625 898 money from outside sources. See Cir.1990) (inmates constitutionally, can be (8th Klecker, 1179, 648 F.2d 1183 ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍Jensen using money prohibited from their Cir.1981) (holding prop that inmates have a donations). religious accounts for Parratt, money); erty in their Sell v. interest (8th Cir.) Moreover, 753, (same), absolutely inmates are not 757 cert. denied, deprived 54 of the benefit of their when 434 U.S.

955 Moreover, argument the inmates’ that to applied toward their restitution part of it is Hundley, satisfy pre-deprivation hearing 34 F.3d 658 require- In Beeks debts. (8th Cir.1994), held that officials were Clause, Logan ments of the Due Process see applying proceeds of a sec- Co., barred v. Zimmerman Brush 455 U.S. paid damage award had tion 1983 (1982), 71 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 265 criminal restitu- inmates to the inmates’ provide to an Specifically, obligations. we stated individual deductions “virtually all the benefit of inmates received funds, were made from outside-source is mis- money judgment pro- when the their placed. analysis The inmates limit their to applied satisfy their restitution ceeds were to inappropriately period an narrow im- —that appellees’ Id. at 661. We find at- debt.” mediately before the deductions wеre actual- unpersua- tempts distinguish Beeks to be ly deprivation made. The in this case actual- Regardless procedural of factual and sive. ly occurred on a broader level three cases, general differences between stages. deprivation initial occurred principle that an inmate whose is when, plea hearing a full trial or after an applied court-ordered taken and toward his opportunity to be heard on claims a lack of does not suffer from a total restitution debt restitution, ability a restitution applicable deprivation of that payment plan and a were established. At prison, leaves both cases. When *5 point, this a debt was created and the inmate Any with his restitution debts. he leaves deprived complete was of freedom over how the is payment of those debts while inmate spend to future until this debt was work to his ultimate benefit. incarcerated will satisfied. logic. courts have followed a similar Other (7th Miller, Campbell 222 deprivation, initial Cf. Prior to this the Cir.) (holding prison constitutional officials’ provided mates were with both notice and an impound prisoner’s decision to a account Moreover, opportunity to be heard. at this pending compliance with a restitution or his set, stage, before restitution was the court characterizing prisoner’s der and com to an evaluate inmate’s individ- plaint a restriction on his freedom to use as Haines, ability pay. ual to See State v. 360 particular way, his funds in a rather than a (Iowа 1985) (noting 791 that it is N.W.2d denied, deprivation money), total of the cert. ability pay” “reasonable to standard which 1019, 107 479 U.S. S.Ct. muster). § pass 910.2 to constitutional allows (1986). addition, plan plan of restitution and Turning depriva- to the risk of erroneous payment subject to of were both modification used, procedures and the by § the court. See Iowa Code 910.7. probable value of additional or substitute occurred, deprivation initial Once this procedures, we find no merit in the inmates’ inmates’ interest their was dimin- argument procedural received no ished, much like the limitations on the free- protection before the deductions were made. by any spend person dom to suffered provided by policy In addition to the notice who incurs a debt. When the granted pro- each inmate was designating specific step took the next of protections plea proceed- cedural of a trial or repayment for the of an inmate’s guilt, subsequent ing to establish and a sen- restitution, procedural requirements di- tencing hearing punishment, including to set See, e.g., Angelone, 771 minished. Scott v. the amount of restitution. Iowa Code (D.Nev.1991) (holding that no- F.Supp. 1064 § 910.3. The Director of the grievance proce- post-deprivation tice and plan an then had individualized restitution process to an in- dures are sufficient freeze prepared pursuant Upon 910.5. section prisoner trust account until the inmate, by any petition matter related to incurred). expenses pays for medical he has pay- plan plan an inmate’s restitution or of stage proceedings, the De- At this second of ment could then be reviewed prisoners of partment provided with notice at his incar- District Court twenty-percent § 910.7. the new ceration. Iowa Code 956 provided satisfied the flexible demands their dures opportunity to contest

of the continued of the Due Process Clause. following this amendment. payment plans reversed, judgment is and the case is were taken stage, deductions At the third entry court for of to the district remanded inmate. by an individual money received judgment favor of defendants. for an additional process need no due We see light protec- stage hearing at this HEANEY, dissenting: Judge, Circuit already afforded the tions that, agree district court I with ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍the foregoing proсedures. inmates in Iowa state process, matter of due the third Mathews Finally, consider prisons entitled to notice and least are In this factor, government’s interest. twenty percent informal impor- case, system serves the the restitution by family or contributions to the compensating victims tant state interests satisfy an inmate’s friends be taken responsibility. See teaching inmates The district court’s obligation. (Iowa Kluesner, 389 N.W.2d 370 State that of the Iowa position is consistent with Haines, 1986); at 795. 360 N.W.2d Grossheim, 525 Court Walters (Iowa 1994), in which the court N.W.2d 830 Furthermore, in main state’s interest requires a highlighted that the Iowa Code prisons control over taining administrative “to reflect indi- payment ideally situated significant. Courts are bearing on the inmate’s vidualized factors details of ad to oversee the minute “in- ability pay” based on the inmate’s Martinez, 416 Procunier v. ministration. health, education, come, physical mental L.Ed.2d family employment and circumstances.” Id. position in no to deter We are 910.5(1)). (citing at 832 Iowa Code providing costs of administrative mine the post- not authorize the “blanket Code does *6 deducting from each incre hearing before non-wage restitution-plan from as- deduction prisoner receives deposit that a mental in Id. sets” at issue this case. single year that In the an outside source.1 majority states that the Iowa inmates The escrowed, prison officials ac adequate procedural protections be- $538,000. approximately The De cumulated made, part in fore deductions were because reasonably determined partment may have sentencing hearing given a were deduction was the that an across-the-board the court the amount of restitution which set large way such sums of best to deal with out, majority points owed. As the to such admin money. accord deference challenging not the court’s initial mates are istrative decisions. determination; nor would such a sentencing, challenge be relevant because at III. purport not to determine the the court does can each month amount that conclusion, find that a balanc we light while in in of all the factors cited compels ing factors us to of the Mathews in These decisions are left to Grossheim. hold that the after an informal other officials tо make applied sources funds received from outside obligations satisfy an inmate’s majority that question did not violate also asserts the inmates during the time procedural protection Given the limited received additional the Due Process Clause. opportunity to have their restitu- deprivation, the more-limited nature of the plans by the Iowa District protectiоns applicable prison reviewed ers, paid under 910.7 of the Iowa Code. to be to state Court section and the deference administration, Although the inmates contest amounts concerning prison decisions post-deprivation hearing, such a hearing proce- withheld we hold that the notice holding although the district court’s contained no 1. We Court note money, now one is re- has clarified limitation. such donations to cover routine periodic quired at a hearing may deprive them of resources necessary FULLER, these resources are

time when Ross as Trustee of the Inter- by Entrepreneurs recognized the State of Iowa. national Association of meet needs Trust, Appellant, of America Benefit majority noting is сorrect that we give deference to state decisions con- should Yet, cerning ULLAND, in the prison administration. E. James as Commissioner of deductions from an inmate’s out- Commerce of the State of context Minnesota, Appellee. resources, the has determined that side State Thus, pre-deprivation hearing required. No. 94-2940. to, majority rejects, than rather defers Appeals, United States Court of by state as determined both Eighth Circuit. Legislature. Supreme Court and the Iowa Submitted Nov. 1995. Finally, obligat- while it is true that we are precedent, own the case the ed to follow our Decided Feb. 1996. on, majority Hundley, relies Beeks (8th Cir.1994), did not involve the issue Beeks,

presented specifi- in this ease. In

cally stated: argue

Beeks and McKenzie also process rights

state law and their due were by ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍victim the manner from their

restitution was deducted

accounts. These issues were consid- [N]or

ered the district court.... fairly

these additional issues raised pro request

informal se for relief.

Id. at 662.

We should follow the district court and the

Iowa Court and hold process rights grant authorities and the relief

given by the district court. To do otherwise deny

is to inmates the due to which

they are entitled under the federal Constitu- Accordingly, I

tion. would affirm the deci-

sion of the district court.