Garnett v. Brock, No. 97-19.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
• Writing for the Court: THOMAS, Justice.
• Citation: 2 P.3d 558
• Parties: Kerry GARNETT, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Jim BROCK and William Hettgar, Appellees (Defendants).
• Docket Number: No. 97-19.
• Decision Date: 14 April 2000

2 P.3d 558

Kerry GARNETT, Appellant (Plaintiff),
v.
Jim BROCK and William Hettgar, Appellees (Defendants)

No. 97-19.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

April 14, 2000.

2 P.3d 559

Representing Appellant: Kerry Garnett, Pro Se

Representing Appellees: William U. Hill, Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; Jennifer A. Cudworth, Assistant Attorney General.

Before LEHMAN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN, and TAYLOR,¹ JJ.

THOMAS, Justice.

The only novel question in this case is the primary issue of whether a prisoner has a property right in a particular work assignment and rate of pay. Collateral issues are presented concerning whether a claim under state law was stated in the absence of an appropriate allegation that a claim was filed as required by the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act,² and whether the district court's ruling with respect to jurisdiction stands as the law of the case in the absence of an attack on the ruling in this appeal. Kerry Garnett's (Garnett) Complaint, alleging that he was unlawfully removed from his prison work assignment as a janitor and reassigned to work in the prison laundry at a lower pay scale, and naming as defendants two employees of the State of Wyoming, was dismissed by the district court for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We agree with the district court that the Complaint failed to state a claim under state law in the absence of any allegation that a timely claim was filed as required by the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act. We afford Garnett the benefit of any doubt as to whether he perfected his appeal from an adverse jurisdictional ruling. The district court correctly ruled that Garnett, as a state prisoner, had no legally cognizable property

2 P.3d 560

right in any particular work assignment. The Order Dismissing Complaint is affirmed

In the Brief of Appellant, Garnett defines the issues as follows:

ARGUMENT I: The court below erred in dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted[.]

ARGUMENT II: The defendants are not entitled to immunity under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act[.]

The State, in the Brief of Appellees, states the issues this way:

I. Whether the district court's jurisdictional determination is the law of the case and not considered by this Court when appellant failed to appeal this particular ruling. Alternatively, was the district court without jurisdiction to hear appellant's state law claims due to appellant's failure to comply with the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act, Wyo. Stat. § 1-39-101, et. seq.?

II. Does an inmate at the Wyoming State Penitentiary have a protected property interest in maintaining a specific wage level for his prison job?

Garnett is serving a life sentence at the Wyoming State Penitentiary for a vicious murder. He also is subject to a consecutive sentence of 20-25 years for burglary. Garnett v. State, 769 P.2d 371 (Wyo.1989). The facts upon which Garnett's civil action is premised are taken from his Complaint. He was assigned a prison job as a janitor, and received a prisoner's salary for that position. On June 10, 1996, officers at the penitentiary advised Garnett that he was being terminated from his job as a janitor and that he was to report to the laundry the next morning, where he would be starting at the bottom of the pay scale. Garnett objected to this job reassignment, and he requested a due process hearing, claiming that the State lacked authority to assign him to a new job at lower pay. Garnett then filed an informal grievance with the shift commander at the penitentiary. Garnett alleges that during the course of the grievance process, he was informed that the actions of the prison authority violated the Wyoming State Penitentiary's own "Policy and Procedure" because the deprivation of pay had to be preceded by a formal due process hearing in the form of a "Job Classification." Garnett alleges that the result of the grievance process was that he was not entitled to and did not receive a due process hearing.

Representing himself, Garnett filed his Complaint in the district court of the Second Judicial District on September 18, 1996. He claimed that he had been denied his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States when he was deprived of "property," his state pay, without a hearing. In his Complaint, Garnett demanded a Temporary Restraining Order against the State, as well as compensatory relief, punitive damages, court costs, attorney's fees, and such other relief as the district court deemed just and proper.

On October 9, 1996, the State filed a Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to W.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In its motion, the State contended that Garnett's Complaint failed to state any claim for which immunity was waived under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act; Garnett failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act; and he failed to plead a violation of any constitutional right. Garnett opposed the State's motion, arguing that the State was not entitled to immunity and that the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act was unconstitutional. In a decision letter filed November 14, 1996, the district court ruled that the State's Motion to Dismiss should be granted. The district court concluded that Garnett had not complied with the requirements of the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act, foreclosing the court from jurisdiction to hear his state law claims. The district court also concluded that Garnett had no constitutionally protected property interest in maintaining a specific wage level as an inmate laborer at the penitentiary, and for that reason, the Complaint failed to state a claim under federal law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss was entered on November 25, 1996, and Garnett has appealed from that order.

2 P.3d 561

Jurisdiction consists of the power to hear and determine a matter in controversy. In Interest of MFB, 860 P.2d 1140, 1146 (Wyo.1993). On appeal, jurisdictional questions are subject to plenary review under the inherent power and duty of the Supreme Court to address jurisdictional defects. Pawlowski v. Pawlowski, 925 P.2d 240, 242...