Givens v. Alabama Dept of Corrections

• Citation: 381 F.3d 1064
• Decision Date: 18 August 2004
• Docket Number: No. 03-14086.,03-14086.
• Parties: Joseph G. GIVENS, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Michael W. Haley, individually, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)

Page 1064

381 F.3d 1064

Joseph G. GIVENS, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Michael W. Haley, individually, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-14086.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

August 18, 2004.

Donald A. Chapman, Decatur, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Kevin Christopher Newsom, Montgomery, AL, Andrew Weldon Redd, AL Dept. of Corrections, Montgomery, AL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Before BLACK and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges, and STROM^*, District Judge.

BLACK, Circuit Judge:

Alabama inmates participating in work release have part of their wages deposited by the state's Department of Corrections (the Department) in bank accounts in their names. Although interest accrues on these accounts, Department policy prohibits inmates from receiving it. Appellant Joseph G. Givens, a former work release participant, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the Department's policy violated both federal and state law. In particular, Givens argued the Department's policy constituted an unlawful taking. The district court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim, and we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Alabama statutorily authorizes the Department to adopt regulations and policies establishing a work-release program for persons incarcerated by the state. See Ala.Code § 14-8-2. This authority is constrained by several relevant limitations. First, any wages earned by an inmate must be paid directly to the Department. Id. § 14-8-6. Second, the Department may withhold part of the wages received, but the withholding cannot exceed a set percentage of the total wages earned. Id. Third, the remainder of an inmate's earnings—less any withdrawals made by the inmate during incarceration—must be paid to the inmate upon release. Id.

Pursuant to its statutory authority, the Department implemented a work release program. This program is described in Administrative Regulation No. 410, which provides that, after the Department has withheld its percentage of an inmate's earnings,¹ the remainder is to be deposited in a Prisoner Money on Deposit (PMOD) account in the inmate's name. Dep't of Corr. Admin. Reg. No. 410, § VII.B (Sept. 2, 1997).

In Alabama, PMOD accounts are administered in accordance with the Department's Manual of Accounting Procedures for Institutions and Community Based Facilities, which specifically states that "inmates are not entitled to receive interest on PMOD accounts."² Ala. Dep't of Corr. Manual of Accounting Procedures for Insts. and Cmty. Based Facilities, ch. 5, at 26.

Givens was incarcerated in Alabama from 1986 until his release in 2002. During this time, he participated in the Department's work-release program. The wages he earned were paid directly to the Department, and, after the Department withheld its percentage, the remainder was deposited in a PMOD account in his name. Upon his release, Givens was paid the amount that had been deposited in his PMOD account less the withdrawals he had made while incarcerated. In accordance with Department policy, Givens did not receive any of the interest that had accrued on his account.

Givens commenced this action against the Department and assorted state officials by filing a complaint in the Northern District of Alabama. Givens alleged the Department's refusal to allow him to collect the interest that had accrued on his PMOD account (1) constituted a wrongful taking under both federal and state law, and (2) violated § 14-8-35(4) of the Alabama Code, which prohibits the exploitation of inmates. The district court dismissed the takings claims, concluding Givens had no property interest in the interest on his account. The district court also dismissed the claim based on the alleged violation of § 14-8-35(4) on the ground it was simply not "cognizable." This appeal followed.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review the district court's dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim de novo. Behlen v. Merrill Lynch, 311 F.3d 1087, 1090 (11th Cir.2002).

III. DISCUSSION

We are asked to decide only whether the district court erred in dismissing Givens's claims that an unlawful taking occurred.³

The Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment, which was made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that "`private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.'" Phillips v. Washington Legal Found., 524 U.S. 156, 163-64, 118 S.Ct. 1925, 1930, 141 L.Ed.2d 174 (1998) (quoting U.S. Const. amend. V). The Alabama Constitution contains virtually identical wording. See Ala. Const. art. 1, § 23. Thus, to state a Takings claim under either federal or Alabama law, a plaintiff must first demonstrate that he possesses a "property interest" that is constitutionally protected. See Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986, 1000-01, 104 S.Ct. 2862, 2871, 81 L.Ed.2d 815 (1984); Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. New York, 438 U.S. 104, 125, 98 S.Ct. 2646, 2659, 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978); Jackson v. Birmingham Foundry & Mach. Co., 154 Ala. 464, 45 So. 660, 662-63 (Ala.1908). Only if the plaintiff actually possesses such an interest will a reviewing court then determine whether the deprivation or reduction of that interest constitutes a "taking." Schneider v. California Dep't of Corr., 151 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir.1998).

The Takings Clause protects private property; it does not create it. See Phillips, 524 U.S. at 164, 118 S.Ct. at 1930. Thus, to determine whether a particular property interest is protected, we look to "existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies v. Beckwith, 449 U.S. 155, 161, 101 S.Ct. 446, 451, 66 L.Ed.2d 358 (1980).

Here, Givens argues that, as an Alabama inmate, he had a property interest in the interest that accrued on his PMOD account. Given that whether an Alabama inmate possesses such a property interest is a question of first impression in this Circuit, we find it helpful to begin by setting forth the cases that shape our analysis.

A. Relevant Precedent

We commence by briefly mentioning two relevant Supreme Court decisions. In Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies, the Supreme Court held that a state violated the Takings Clause when it took for itself—pursuant to statutory authority—the interest that accrued on an interpleader fund deposited in the registry of a county court, where a fee—prescribed by a different statute—was also charged for the clerk's services in receiving the fund into the registry. 449 U.S. at 164, 101 S.Ct. at 452. More recently, in Phillips, the Court held that the interest paid on IOLTA accounts⁴ is the property of the client. 524 U.S. at 160, 118 S.Ct. at 1928.

We next turn to the relevant published decisions from our sister Circuits. In Schneider, the Ninth Circuit held inmates have a protected property interest in the interest that accrues on their accounts, even where state statute provides otherwise. 151 F.3d at 1201. In reaching this conclusion, the Ninth Circuit relied on both Phillips and Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies. 151 F.3d at 1199. And, as did the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit stressed the pedigree of the common law maxim that interest should follow principal. See id. at 1200-01.⁵

The Fourth Circuit reached the opposite result in Washlefske v. Winston, 234 F.3d 179 (4th Cir.2000). In that case, Virginia had directed its Department of Corrections to invest prisoner funds at its discretion and to use any interest earned for the benefit of the general prison population. Id. at 181. The Fourth Circuit ultimately held Virginia inmates did not have a protected property interest in the interest on their accounts. Id. at 185-86. In reaching this conclusion, the Fourth Circuit noted that, because inmates at common law traditionally had no right to earn wages, any rights they currently possessed extended only so far as Virginia statute or regulation provided. Id. at 184-86 (distinguishing Phillips and Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies). The Fourth Circuit further noted that, because neither statute nor regulation provided that inmates were to receive the interest on their accounts, inmates had no property right in any interest that accrued. Id. at 185-86. Rather, all the inmates had was a limited property right in the amounts deposited in their names—specifically, the inmates possessed the limited right to access their deposits when permitted by statute, regulation, or policy. See id.

B. Analysis

Here, like the Ninth Circuit in Schneider and the Fourth Circuit in Washlefske, we are presented with a state scheme—Alabama's—that prohibits inmates from receiving the interest that accrues on their accounts. Our task is thus to determine whether an Alabama property interest is implicated—i.e., either one that existed at the time Alabama adopted the common law of England, or one that Alabama subsequently created.⁶

1. Whether a Property Interest Existed at Common Law

We now address whether Alabama inmates have a common law property right in the interest that accrues on their accounts. See Washlefske, at 184-85; Schneider, 151 F.3d at 1200-01. Certainly, non-inmates have such a property right. See, e.g., Phillips, 524 U.S. at 165-66 & n. 5, 118 S.Ct. at 1930-31 & n. 5 (listing cases applying the common law maxim that interest should follow principal); Freeman v. Young, 507 So.2d 109, 110 (Ala.Civ.App.1987) (quoting Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies and holding that, where one party in an interpleader action receives half of the amount deposited with the court, that party is entitled to half of the interest as well). Givens argues the interest-follows-principal maxim should apply to inmate accounts. We disagree for three reasons.

First, Givens's argument ignores both his status as an inmate and the fact that, at common law, such status was significant....