Slade v. Hampton Roads Regional Jail

• Citation: 407 F.3d 243
• Decision Date: 09 May 2005
• Docket Number: No. 04-6481.,04-6481.
• Parties: Calvin SLADE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HAMPTON ROADS REGIONAL JAIL, Defendant-Appellee, and Commonwealth Of Virginia, Intervenor.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

407 F.3d 243

Calvin SLADE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HAMPTON ROADS REGIONAL JAIL, Defendant-Appellee, and Commonwealth Of Virginia, Intervenor.

No. 04-6481.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: February 4, 2005.

Decided: May 9, 2005.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

ARGUED: Joshua Neal Auerbach, Public Justice Center, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Samuel Lawrence Dumville, Norris & St. Clair, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee. Joel Christopher Hoppe, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Intervenor. ON BRIEF: Wendy N. Hess, Public Justice Center, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Kent K. Stanley, Norris & St. Clair, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee. Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General of Virginia, William E. Thro, State Solicitor General, Maureen Riley Matsen, Deputy State Solicitor General, Richmond, Virginia, for Intervenor.

Before WILKINSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and Henry F. FLOYD, United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge WILLIAMS wrote the opinion, in which Judge WILKINSON and Judge FLOYD joined.

OPINION

WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge:

Calvin Slade, a pretrial detainee at the Hampton Roads Regional Jail (the Jail) in Virginia,¹ appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West 2000) complaint. On appeal, Slade asserts that the Jail's policy of charging a pretrial detainee one dollar per day to help defray his cost of housing violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment. Because the charge does not amount to punishment, however, we hold that it does not violate Slade's due process liberty right to be free from punishment before conviction. We also conclude that Slade failed to plead violations of either the Procedural Due Process Clause or the Takings Clause.

I.

Slade was a pretrial detainee being held at the Jail when, on January 23, 2004, he filed a pro se "motion" in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia challenging the Jail's practice of charging him one dollar per day from his inmate account during his detention. The Jail's practice, which began in November 2003, is authorized by Va.Code § 53.1-131.3, which provides, in full:

Any sheriff or jail superintendent may establish a program to charge inmates a reasonable fee, not to exceed $1 per day, to defray the costs associated with the prisoners' keep. The Board [of Corrections] shall develop a model plan and adopt regulations for such program, and shall provide assistance, if requested, to the sheriff or jail superintendent in the implementation of such program. Such funds shall be retained in the locality where the funds were collected and shall be used for general jail purposes.

Va.Code Ann. § 53.1-131.3 (Michie Supp. 2003).

Pursuant to this statutory authority, the Board of Corrections developed a Model Plan to implement § 53.1-131.3 and assess the one dollar per day charge, and the Jail adopted the Model Plan as its official policy for collecting the fee. Under the Jail's policy, an inmate is informed of the charge upon his arrival at the Jail and asked to sign a form indicating that the charge was explained to him. The charge is then assessed daily from an inmates' account. An inmate account is an account that the Jail permits inmates to maintain in order to purchase commissary items and pay for medical co-payments. If an inmate has no funds in his account, the account is debited until funds become available. If an inmate is released, transferred, or paroled with a negative account balance, that balance will be applied to the inmate's new account if he is incarcerated at the Jail in the future but will not result in a judgment lien against the inmate.

The fees that are collected from the one dollar charge are held in a separate revenue account to be used for general jail purposes. The Jail's policy also provides that inmates who are adjudicated "not guilty" on all charges are entitled to a refund of the fee if, within 60 days, they make such a request in writing. Refunds are not eligible to those detainees who are found guilty, or whose charges are nolle prossed or dismissed.

Slade's pro se complaint alleged that the fee "violat[ed] inmates [sic] 14th Amendment Constitutional rights ... to be treated equally, (equal treatment), and equal protection of the law." (J.A. at 4.) Slade also complained that "those inmates awaiting to go to trial [like him] should not be punished (8th Amendment) or treated differently than other state of Virginia inmates." (J.A. at 5.) Slade concluded his complaint by noting that "[t]he law must not be arbitrary, capricious, or contradictory." (J.A. at 5.) Slade requested injunctive relief, and also requested that the district court reimburse Slade and the other inmates who were paying the charge.

On February 20, 2004, the district court, sua sponte, dismissed Slade's complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp.2004).² See Slade v. Hampton Roads Regional Jail, 303 F.Supp.2d 779 (E.D.Va. 2004). The district court construed Slade's complaint as raising two claims: one under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and one under the substantive Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.³ The district court dismissed the Equal Protection claim, reasoning "the Virginia statute does not violate equal protection because it applies to all inmates in local and regional jails. The mere fact that not all jails have, as yet, implemented the `Prisoner's Keep' provision, does not create an equal protection violation with respect to plaintiff." (J.A. at 16.) The district court also dismissed the due process claim, because "a $1.00 a day fee for the purpose of defraying jail costs is not `punishment' within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." (J.A. at 16.) Slade filed a timely pro se appeal, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291 (West 1993).

II.

We apply de novo review a § 1915A dismissal for failure to state a claim. See Veney v. Wyche, 293 F.3d 726, 730 (4th Cir.2002). Courts should not dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim unless "after accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the plaintiff's complaint as true and drawing all reasonable factual inferences from those facts in the plaintiff's favor, it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim entitling him to relief." Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th Cir.1999). "Moreover, when such a dismissal involves a civil rights complaint, `we must be especially solicitous of the wrongs alleged' and `must not dismiss the complaint unless it appears to a certainty that the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any legal theory which might plausibly be suggested by the facts alleged.'" Veney, 293 F.3d at 730 (quoting Harrison v. United States Postal Serv., 840 F.2d 1149, 1152 (4th Cir.1988)).

On appeal, Slade has abandoned his Equal Protection claim. Instead, Slade now contends (1) that the charge is unconstitutional because it amounts to the punishment of pretrial detainees; (2) that the charge is unconstitutional because there are no procedures given before the charge is imposed; and (3) that the charge is an impermissible taking of property without just compensation. Before we turn to the merits, however, we briefly must address whether Slade's claim is moot.

III. Mootness

"[A] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer `live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969). By way of supplemental authority, the Jail informed the panel that Slade was released from pretrial detention in July 2004. Accordingly, it urges us to hold that his claim is no longer a "live" controversy. Slade's complaint, however, requested both injunctive and monetary relief. The request for monetary relief is not moot even though Slade has been released from Jail because Slade retains a "legally cognizable interest" in the outcome of the case, i.e., the return of money the Jail deducted from his inmate account. Cf. Mellen v. Bunting, 327 F.3d 355, 365 (4th Cir.2003) (holding that students' claim for damages was not moot even though students had graduated during the pendency of the appeal).

Slade's claim for injunctive relief, however, is moot because he is no longer in pretrial detention. Slade seeks to avoid this conclusion by urging that his case is one that is "capable of repetition yet evading review." The Supreme Court has explained that, "in the absence of a class action, the `capable of repetition, yet evading review' doctrine [is] limited to the situation where two elements combined: (1) the challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there was a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again." Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149, 96 S.Ct. 347, 46 L.Ed.2d 350 (1975) (per curiam). In cases involving pretrial detention, the first inquiry is easily answered in Slade's favor. "Pretrial detention is by nature temporary, and it is most unlikely that any given individual could have his constitutional claim decided on appeal before he is either released or convicted." Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 111 n. 11, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975). Slade's claim therefore evades review.

Thus, our mootness inquiry into Slade's injunctive relief claim hinges on whether there is a reasonable expectation that Slade will be subject to the same action in the future. "[This] standard is not `mathematically precise' and requires only a `reasonable likelihood' of repetition." Oliver v....