Ala. Dep't Of Corr. v. Merritt.
| Decision Date | 18 June 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. CV-08-416,No. CV-08-1640,No. CV-07-143,No. CV-07-1194,No. 2081084,2081084,CV-07-143,CV-07-1194,CV-08-1640,CV-08-416 |
| Parties | Alabama Department of Corrections et alv.Jerry Mack Merritt et al.Jerry Mack Merritt et al.v.Alabama Department of Corrections et al. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010
Appeals from Montgomery Circuit Court
The Alabama Department of Corrections ("the department"); Richard Allen, commissioner of the Department of Corrections; Governor Bob Riley; Mr. Carter, 1 director of the Mobile Work Release Center; and Mr. Reynolds, 2 director of the Loxley Work Release Center (hereinafter referred to collectively as "DOC") appeal from the judgment determining that DOC violated the department's regulations by overcharging work-release inmates for transportation costs and by misinterpreting state law by withholding more money from the gross pay of inmates' work-release earnings than it was authorized to do under state law. jerry Mack Merritt, Thomas Layton, Johnny Walker, Warren R. Robinson, and Darrell Williams3 (hereinafter referred to collectively as "the plaintiffs"), inmates or former inmates in the custody of the department who participated in a work-release program, cross-appeal from the trial court's judgment determining that DOC was authorized to charge work-release inmates for certain goods or services and to charge allinmates a fee for self-initiated medical care and a fee for drug testing conducted by entities other than the department.
The record indicates the following. The department is authorized to operate a work-release program for inmates. Pursuant to that program, inmates are permitted "to leave the confines [of their places of incarceration] unaccompanied by a custodial agent for a prescribed period of time to work at paid employment." § 14-8-2(a), Ala. Code 1975. Work-release inmates are confined in their respective prisons during the hours they are not at work. § 14-8-2 (a). Inmates who are qualified to take part in the program have the option of whether to participate.
Since 1992, § 14-8-6, Ala. Code 1975, has authorized the department to withhold up to 40% of an inmate's work-release earnings for costs "incident to the inmate's confinement." Before 1992, § 14-8-6 provided that the maximum amount of earnings the department was allowed to withhold from an inmate's work-release earnings was 32.5% of those earnings. The record includes a copy of Admin. Reg. No. 410, promulgated by the department, which, in § VII.B., provides that "[a]s authorized by statute, thirty-two and one-half percent (32 1/2%)of work releasees' gross earnings will be deducted by the Department of Corrections to assist in defraying the cost of his/her incarceration." (Emphasis in original.) Richard Allen, the commissioner of the department, testified by deposition that, after § 14-8-6 was amended to allow the department to withhold up to 40% of an inmate's work-release earnings, the department's policy was to withhold up to 40%, rather than up to 32.5%, of an inmate's work-release earnings even though Admin. Reg. No. 410, § VII. B. had not been formally amended. However, that unwritten policy has been ratified by the commissioner. The copy of Admin. Reg. No. 410 submitted into evidence is dated 1997, and it includes a handwritten notation at § VII.B. stating, "Changed to 40%, see 14-8-6."4 The balance of a work-release inmate's earnings is deposited into his prison account.
Administrative Regulation No. 410 also authorizes the department to charge inmates participating in the work-release program for the cost of transportation to and fromtheir places of employment.5 Pursuant to Admin. Reg. No. 410, § VIII.B., inmates using transportation provided by the department to and from their work-release jobs may to be assessed $2 for a one-way trip and $4 for a round trip. At the time of trial, however, inmates were being charged transportation costs of $2.50 for a one-way trip and $5 for a round trip.
The department also charges work-release inmates a laundry fee for cleaning the "free-world" clothes they wear to their work-release jobs. There is no charge for laundry services for prison-issued clothing. One of the plaintiffs, Merritt, complained of having to pay $16 a month for laundry services while he was at the Loxley and Mobile work-release centers. He also complained about having to use a coin-operated laundry while at the Mobile work-release center after September 2005, because, he said, "minimum custody laundry was free."
Merritt and Walker also testified that they had to purchase their own toiletries while participating in the work-release program. Those purchases must be made in addition to the money the department withholds from work-release inmates' earnings to defray the costs of the inmates' confinement. The plaintiffs testified that, when they were incarcerated in prisons, as opposed to work-release centers, toiletries were provided to them at no charge.
The department has promulgated a number of other regulations authorizing certain charges at issue in this case. Pursuant to Admin. Reg. No. 601, the department is authorized to charge an inmate a $3 co-pay for "self-initiated" medical visits. If the visit is initiated by medical staff, a physician referral, the warden, or another prison official, the inmate is not charged the co-pay. The regulation also specifies that under no circumstances would an inmate be denied access to health care because of an inability to pay the co-pay. Allen said that the purpose of the co-pay is to discourage malingering among inmates.
Pursuant to Admin. Reg. No. 44 0, § V.F.3., the department is authorized to charge an inmate the cost of a urine drugtest performed by an independent laboratory to confirm a positive test for illegal drugs. At the time of trial, that cost was $31.50. If the results of the independent test were negative for illegal substances, the inmate was not charged the fee. Admin. Reg. No. 440, S V.E.5.
After a hearing, the trial court entered a judgment approving the practice of charging work-release inmates the co-pay for "self-initiated" medical care, approving the drug-testing fee charged to inmates when a drug test is administered to confirm the results of a previous drug test indicating that the inmate has tested positive for use of an illegal substance, and approving the laundry fee.
On the other hand, the trial court found that the department had failed to amend its regulations, as required by the regulations themselves, and that the department's "informal" amendment of the regulations was invalid. Therefore, the trial court held, DOC did not have the authority to withhold more than 32.5% of a work-release inmate's earnings to defray the costs of incarceration or to increase the charges an inmate pays for transportation costs from $2 to $2.50 for one-way trips and from $4 to $5 for roundtrips to the inmate's place of employment. The trial court enjoined DOC from withholding 40% of an inmate's work-release earnings or from charging inmates more for transportation than the amount stipulated in Admin. Reg. No. 410, § VII.B. However, the trial court stayed its injunction for 180 days to allow the department to formally amended its regulations to bring them in line with current practices.
Because the trial court found that, under the terms of the department's current regulations, DOC was allowed to withhold only 32.5% of an inmate's work-release earnings, the issue whether DOC, by charging fees for certain goods and services in addition to withholding funds from an inmate's work-release earnings, was exceeding the 40% cap under § 14-8-6 was moot. However, the court went on to "hold" that, in amending § 14-8-6, the Legislature intended The trial court stated: "Once the 40 percent threshold is reached, [DOC] is prohibited by statute from taking any more money, whether itis for costs of confinement, costs of work release, or any other fee or expense."
The trial court further held that § 14-8-6 authorized the department to withhold a percentage of a work-release inmate's earnings "actually deposited in the institution by the employer" and not a percentage of an inmate's gross income. Therefore, the trial court held, the department had misinterpreted the statute when it promulgated Admin. Reg. No. 410, § VII.B., which allows the department to withhold 32.5% of a work-release inmate's gross earnings.
The trial court noted that the parties had agreed to resolve liability issues before presenting evidence on damages or class certification. Because the amount of damages relating to the issues of transportation costs and income withholding had yet to be determined, the trial court certified its judgment on the issue of liability as final pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. DOC appeals; the plaintiffs cross-appeal.Propriety of the Rule 54(b) certification
We begin by addressing the effectiveness of the trial court's certification of finality of the judgment even though the issue of damages has not yet been adjudicated.
"[F]or a Rule 54(b) certification of finality to be effective, it must fully adjudicate at least one claim or fully dispose of the claims as they relate to at least one party." Haynes v. Alfa Fin. Corp., 730 So. 2d 178, 181 (Ala. 1999).
To continue reading
Request your trial