Wildermuth v. DOC et al, No. 2:2014cv00223 - Document 39 (E.D. Wash. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment ECF No. 29 is GRANTED. Plaintiffs in forma pauperis status ECF No. 6 is REVOKED. The file is CLOSED. Signed by Chief Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Wildermuth v. DOC et al Doc. 39 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 DEAN WILDERMUTH, NO: 2:14-CV-0223-TOR Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BERNARD WARNER and MAGGIE MILLER-STOUT, 11 Defendants. 12 13 BEFORE THE COURT is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment 14 (ECF No. 29). This matter was submitted for consideration without oral argument. 15 The Court—having reviewed the parties’ complete briefing, the record, and files 16 therein—is fully informed. For the following reasons, this Court grants 17 Defendants’ motion. 18 // 19 // 20 // ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 BACKGROUND 2 A. Transfer 3 Plaintiff Dean Wildermuth, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is a 4 Colorado offender currently housed in a Washington DOC prison. ECF Nos. 10 at 5 1-2; 32-1 ¶ 1. In July 1997, Plaintiff requested transfer to Washington “to be near 6 [his] wife and daughter.” ECF No. 36-1 at 5. In applying to transfer pursuant to 7 the Interstate Corrections Compact (“Compact”), Plaintiff acknowledged that the 8 terms of his confinement in Washington would be different than in Colorado: 9 10 11 12 I understand and accept the confinement in another state will be different from confinement in this State. . . . In order to derive the advantages of supervision under the Interstate Corrections Compact for the Transfer of Inmates, I do hereby accept such difference in course and character of confinement as may be provided, and I do state that I consider the benefits of confinement under the Compact to be worth any adjustments in my situation which may be required. 13 Id. Upon Plaintiff’s transfer, Washington, as the receiving state, became 14 responsible for bearing the cost of providing care for and custody of Plaintiff. ECF 15 No. 30-1 at 12 (Contract Between the State of Colorado and the State of 16 Washington for the Implementation of the Interstate Corrections Compact Act) 17 (“CO-WA Contract”). 18 B. Statutory Deductions 19 In Washington, pursuant to RCW 72.09.111 and 72.09.480, DOC inmates’ 20 funds are subject to certain non-court ordered deductions: relevant here, the Cost of ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 2 1 Incarceration (“COI”) and Crime Victims’ Compensation (“CVC”) deductions. 2 Specifically, an inmate’s wages earned in the institutional work program are 3 subject to the COI and CVC deductions, which fixed deduction formula depends 4 on an inmate’s employment. RCW 72.09.111(1). An inmate’s funds received 5 from outside sources, excluding settlements or awards from legal actions, are also 6 subject to a 5% CVC deduction and 20% COI deduction. RCW 72.09.480(2)(a), 7 (e). 8 Although Plaintiff is a Colorado offender, the deductions apply to him. 9 Pursuant to RCW 72.09.015(17), “inmate” is defined as “a person committed to the 10 custody of the department, including but not limited to persons residing in a 11 correctional institution or facility . . . persons received from another state, state 12 agency, county, or federal jurisdiction.” Further, when he transferred, Plaintiff 13 became subject to the CO-WA Contract, which, in relevant part, provides that 14 “[i]nmates, while in the custody of the receiving state, shall be subject to all the 15 provisions of law and regulations applicable to persons committed for violations of 16 law of the receiving state not inconsistent with the sentence imposed.” ECF No. 17 30-1 at 9. 18 C. Plaintiff’s Claims 19 Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff challenges these statutory deductions 20 made to his inmate trust account as a violation of his constitutional procedural and ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 3 1 substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. 1 ECF No. 10. In 2 short, Plaintiff contends that the COI and CVC deductions violate his (1) 3 procedural due process rights because he is not given notice and the opportunity to 4 object before the deductions to his inmate trust account are made; and (2) 5 substantive due process rights because the statutory deductions—which 6 compensate Washington crime victims and pay for the cost of incarcerating 7 Washington inmates—are not rationally related to any government interest when 8 applied to out-of-state offenders, like him. See ECF Nos. 10; 32; 37. 9 Defendants Bernard Warner and Maggie Miller-Stout move for summary 10 judgment on these claims, contending that (1) no additional procedures are 11 constitutionally necessary before making the statutory deductions to Plaintiff’s 12 account; and (2) the State of Washington has a legitimate public interest in 13 conserving taxpayer money by sharing the costs of incarceration, which 14 Washington is responsible for covering, and compensating crime victims more 15 generally. 2 ECF No. 29. 16 17 1 18 12. 19 2 20 Plaintiff never filed or served this pleading on Defendants. This Court previously dismissed Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim. ECF No. While the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to file a second amended complaint, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 4 1 DISCUSSION 2 I. 3 Summary judgment may be granted to a moving party who demonstrates Standard of Review 4 “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled 5 to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Resolution by summary 6 judgment is proper where only questions of law are presented. Asuncion v. Dist. 7 Dir. of U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 427 F.2d 523, 524 (9th Cir. 8 1970); Valley View Health Care, Inc. v. Chapman, 992 F.Supp.2d 1016, 1029 9 (E.D. Cal. 2014). 10 11 Because the matter before the Court presents only questions of law, resolution by summary judgment is appropriate. 12 II. 13 To establish a section 1983 claim, a claimant must prove “(1) that a person Section 1983 14 acting under color of state law committed the conduct at issue, and (2) that the 15 conduct deprived the claimant of some right, privilege, or immunity protected by 16 the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 17 632–33 (9th Cir. 1988). “A person deprives another ‘of a constitutional right, 18 within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in 19 another's affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to 20 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 5 1 do that ‘causes’ the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains.’” Id. at 633 2 (brackets omitted) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). 3 A. Statutory Deductions 4 As a threshold issue, this Court will address Plaintiff’s arguments that 5 appear to contest whether, constitutional issues aside, the deductions even apply to 6 him based on the language in the Compact, the CO-WA Contract, and Washington 7 law. 8 First, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants cannot enforce the statutory 9 deductions on out-of-state offenders because these deductions were not in effect 10 when the Compact between Washington and Colorado was executed. ECF No. 32 11 at 3-5, 11. However, the CO-WA Contract expressly states that inmates “in the 12 custody of the receiving state shall be subject to all the provisions of law and 13 regulations applicable to persons committed for violations of the receiving state 14 not inconsistent with the sentence imposed.” ECF No. 30 at 2 (emphasis added). 15 In other words, the Contract is not limited to only those laws in effect at the time of 16 its execution. To interpret otherwise would lead to the absurd result of the 17 Washington and Colorado Departments of Correction continuously having to 18 update the Contract to account for new laws and regulations in each state in order 19 for the new law to apply. See Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Columbia State Bank, 183 20 Wash.App. 599, 608 (2014) (“[Courts] avoid interpreting statutes and contracts in ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 6 1 ways that lead to absurd results.”). Accordingly, when Plaintiff transferred to 2 Washington in 1997, he became subject to all the laws and regulations applicable 3 to Washington inmates, including imposition of the COI and CVC deductions. 4 Second, Plaintiff asserts that the sending, rather than receiving, state’s law 5 governs. ECF No. 32 at 5. In support, Plaintiff cites to section 2 of the CO-WA 6 Contract, which provides that “the laws and administrative rules and regulations of 7 the sending state shall govern in any matter relating to an inmate confined pursuant 8 to this contract and the Interstate Corrections Compact. ECF No. 30-1 at 5. 9 However, this provision begins with the language, “Except where expressly 10 otherwise provided in this contract or by law.” Id. Section 17 of the Contract 11 expressly states that “[i]nmates, while in the custody of the receiving state, shall be 12 subject to all the provisions of law and regulations applicable to persons committed 13 for violations of law of the receiving state not inconsistent with the sentence 14 imposed.” Id. at 9. Because a specific provision of a contract governs over a 15 general provision, see Adler v. Fred Lind Manor, 153 Wash.2d 331, 354-55 (2004) 16 (“It is a well-known principle of contract interpretation that ‘specific terms and 17 exact terms are given greater weight than general language.’” (quoting Restatement 18 (Second) of Contracts § 203(c) (1981)), Plaintiff’s argument is unpersuasive. 19 Third, Plaintiff asserts that if the Washington legislature intended for the 20 deductions to apply to out-of-state offenders, it could have inserted this specific ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 7 1 language into RCW 72.09.110. ECF No. 32 at 8. Plaintiff’s argument is wholly 2 without merit as the legislature did just that. Pursuant to RCW 72.09.015(17), 3 “inmate” as used throughout the section, is defined as “a person committed to the 4 custody of the department, including but not limited to . . . persons received from 5 another state, state agency, county, or federal jurisdiction.” Accordingly, it is 6 beyond dispute that the Washington legislature intended for these deductions to 7 apply to out-of-state offenders, like Plaintiff. 8 Fourth, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants cannot impose the deductions 9 because the sentencing court did not order that they be imposed. ECF No. 32 at 9- 10 10. This argument too fails as the statutory deductions are separate from court- 11 imposed costs. In re Pierce, 173 Wash.2d 372, 383 (2011) (“Importantly, the costs 12 of incarceration the Department collects under RCW 72.09.111 and RCW 13 72.09.480 are separate from any costs of incarceration ordered in the judgment and 14 sentence.”). Accordingly, the deductions apply to Plaintiff. 15 16 B. Procedural Due Process The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from “depriv[ing] any person of 17 life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. Amend. XIV. 18 “Procedural due process rules are meant to protect persons not from the 19 deprivation, but from the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or 20 property.” Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 259 (1978). “Due process ‘is a flexible ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 8 1 concept that varies with the particular situation.’” Shinault v. Hawks, 782 F.3d 2 1053, 1057 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 127 (1990)). 3 Courts analyze procedural due process claims in two steps. First, the court 4 “asks whether there exists a liberty or property interest which has been interfered 5 with by the State.” Vasquez v. Rackauckas, 734 F.3d 1025, 1042 (9th Cir. 2013) 6 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). If the court finds a protected 7 interest, it proceeds to step two to determine what process is due. Quick v. Jones, 8 754 F.2d 1521, 1523 (9th Cir. 1985). In this second step, the court “examines 9 whether the procedures attendant upon that deprivation were constitutionally 10 sufficient.” Vasquez, 734 F.3d at 1042. To guide the second step of the analysis, 11 courts consider the three-part balancing test announced in Mathews v. Eldridge: 12 First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail. 13 14 15 16 17 424 U.S. 319, 334-35 (1976). 1. Step 1: Whether Plaintiff Has a Protected Property Interest 18 The parties do not dispute that Plaintiff has a protected interest in the funds 19 deposited to his inmate trust account and that this protected interest is interfered 20 with when DOC imposes the COI and CVC deductions. See Wright v. Riveland, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 9 1 219 F.3d 905, 913 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Quick, 754 F.2d at 1523). Having 2 determined that Plaintiff has a protected interest in the funds affected by the 3 statutory deductions, the question becomes what process is due. 4 2. Step 2: Whether Procedures Attendant Upon Deprivation are Constitutionally Sufficient 5 a. Private Interest 6 7 First, this Court finds Plaintiff’s private interest in his funds, while not 8 insignificant to Plaintiff, is not substantial given the deductions at issue. “[E]very 9 action affecting an inmate trust account does not necessarily implicate a substantial 10 private interest under the first Mathews prong.” Shinault, 782 F.3d at 1057. As of 11 September 30, 2014, the DOC has deducted a total of $1,526.62 for COI and 12 $694.77 for CVC, which equates to approximately $89.80 for COI deductions and 13 $40.87 for CVC deductions per year in light of Plaintiff’s time in Washington 14 DOC custody. ECF No. 10 at 16; see Sickles v. Campbell Cty., Ky., 501 F.3d 726, 15 730 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that $20 and $110.27 sums “do not begin to approach 16 the kinds of government conduct that have required a predeprivation hearing, such 17 as a limitation on the historic right to maintain control over one’s home or the 18 termination of government benefits, which for many people are the very means by 19 which to live” (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted)). 20 Accordingly, this factor does not weigh in favor of additional procedures. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 10 1 b. Risk of Erroneous Deprivation and Probable Value of Additional Safeguards 2 3 Second, this Court finds the risk of erroneous deprivation on Washington’s 4 statutory deductions scheme is negligible and additional safeguards would have 5 little value. Importantly, the statutory deductions are non-discretionary. See id. 6 (holding that the risk of erroneous deprivation is minor where the accounting is 7 non-discretionary). For both wages and outside funds, the statutory scheme sets 8 fixed percentages to be deducted for COI and CVC deductions. See RCW 9 72.09.111(1), 72.09.480(2). Accordingly, because the routine, non-discretionary 10 deductions under the statutory scheme carry little risk of resulting in an erroneous 11 deprivation and would not benefit from additional safeguards, this factor does not 12 weigh in favor of additional procedures. 13 c. Government’s Interest 14 Finally, this Court finds the government’s interest in imposing these 15 deductions is substantial and additional procedures would be unduly burdensome. 16 For one, the government’s interest in conserving taxpayer resources by sharing 17 incarceration costs is substantial. Further, the state has a significant public interest 18 in supporting crime victims. Finally, it would undoubtedly be a significant 19 administrative burden to conduct pre-deprivation hearings each time the deductions 20 were imposed, especially where such additional safeguards have an insignificant ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 11 1 benefit. Accordingly, this factor also weighs against imposing additional 2 procedures. 3 d. Balancing Mathews Factors In light of the minimal private interest at stake, the small risk of error, the 4 5 minimal benefits of additional safeguards, and the substantial governmental 6 interests at stake, this Court finds additional procedures are not constitutionally 7 required. In making this finding the Court notes that while Plaintiff retains his due 8 process rights while imprisoned, this fact “in no way implies that these rights are 9 not subject to restrictions imposed by the nature of the regime to which they have 10 been lawfully committed.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). 11 Importantly, Plaintiff had notice that the statutory deductions would apply to him. 12 In 1997, Plaintiff applied to transfer from Colorado to Washington and, in so 13 requesting, consented to “such differences in course and character of confinement 14 as may be provided,” ECF No. 36-1 at 5, and voluntarily subjected himself to the 15 Compact and CO-WA Contract, including the provision applying the laws of the 16 receiving state to inmates, ECF No. 30-1 at 9. The government also highlights that 17 the DOC Policies were available to Plaintiff upon his incarceration. Plaintiff’s 18 initial ignorance of the law and DOC policies does not negate the notice provided 19 to him and opportunity to object at that time. 20 // ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 12 1 e. Post-Deprivation Remedies 2 Additionally, Plaintiff was provided adequate post-deprivation remedies. 3 DOC inmates, like Plaintiff, are provided an accounting of their deductions and 4 may challenge the deductions through prison grievance procedures or by filing a 5 tort claim with the state. See Zinermon, 494 U.S. at 132 (“[I]n situations where a 6 predeprivation hearing is unduly burdensome in proportion to the liberty interest at 7 stake . . . postdeprivation remedies might satisfy due process.’); see Wright, 219 8 F.3d at 918 (holding that Washington’s grievance process and tort suit provide 9 adequate post-deprivation remedies for unauthorized deductions from a prisoner’s 10 account). In fact, Plaintiff took advantage of both these procedures. ECF Nos. 32- 11 7; 32-8. His frustration seems to lie in his confusion over what due process 12 protects: Plaintiff is not protected from the deprivation of his protected property 13 interest but the mistaken or unjustified deprivation thereof. Carey, 435 U.S. at 14 259. 15 16 17 18 Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s procedural due process claim. C. Substantive Due Process The Fourteenth Amendment also protects individuals from the arbitrary 19 deprivation of their protected interests. “Legislative acts that do not impinge on 20 fundamental rights or employ suspect classifications are presumed valid, and this ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 13 1 presumption is overcome only by a ‘clear showing of arbitrariness and 2 irrationality.’” Kawaoka v. City of Arroyo Grande, 17 F.3d 1227, 1234 (9th Cir. 3 1994). In conducting this inquiry, the Court looks to whether the legislation 4 “advances any legitimate public purpose” and “if it is at least fairly debatable that 5 the [legislative] decision . . . was rationally related to legitimate governmental 6 interests.” Id. (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). The plaintiff 7 bears the “extremely high” burden of showing that a statute is arbitrary and 8 irrational. Richardson v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 124 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 9 1997). 10 This Court finds Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on 11 Plaintiff’s substantive due process claim because the deductions under RCW 12 chapter 72.09 are “rationally related to the legitimate government interests of 13 curtailing the costs of incarceration and compensating victims of crime.” In re 14 Metcalf, 92 Wash. App. 165, 176 (1998). 15 16 1. COI Deductions First, regarding the COI deductions, the state has a legitimate governmental 17 interest in conserving taxpayer resources by sharing the costs of incarceration. 18 While Plaintiff is a Colorado offender, Washington bears the cost of providing for 19 his care and custody while he is housed in Washington. ECF No. 30-1 at 12 20 (“[E]ach state shall bear the cost of providing care and custody of the inmate sent ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 14 1 to it.”). The COI deductions, which are “deposited in a dedicated fund with the 2 department and . . . used only for the purpose of enhancing and maintaining 3 correctional industries work programs,” RCW 72,09.111(7), are rationally related 4 to Washington’s legitimate interest in preserving taxpayer funds that would 5 otherwise go to its prison systems. See Pierce, 173 Wash. 2d at 384-85, 387 6 (noting that the legislature granted the DOC authority to collect non-court-ordered 7 costs of incarceration “in the wake of an escalating prison population and run-away 8 costs” and to help effectuate the policy that inmates “have a personal and fiscal 9 obligation in the corrections system”). Accordingly, Plaintiff has not met the 10 “extremely high” burden of demonstrating that the COI deductions do not advance 11 any legitimate public purpose. 12 2. CVC Deductions 13 Second, regarding CVC deductions, the state has a legitimate governmental 14 interest in compensating crime victims. Although Plaintiff is a Colorado offender 15 and thus he does not have a Washington victim, this does not negate Washington’s 16 legitimate interest in assisting crime victims in general. See McCoy v. Clarke, No. 17 CV-05-5036-AAM, 2005 WL 1979141, at *4 (E.D. Wash. Aug. 16, 2005) (“The 18 fact, however, that the deducted money does not go directly to [plaintiff’s] victims, 19 or to his state (Maryland), does not defeat the legitimate interest Washington has in 20 assisting crime victims in general, regardless of their states of residence. Indeed ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 15 1 none of the fees collected from inmates can be said to actually and exclusively go 2 to the specific victims of their crimes.”). The CVC deductions, which are deposited 3 into a special crime victims’ compensation account, RCW 7.68.045, are rationally 4 related to Washington’s legitimate interest in providing for victims of crime. 5 Accordingly, Plaintiff has similarly failed to meet the “extremely high” burden of 6 demonstrating that the CVC deductions do not advance any legitimate public 7 purpose. 8 D. Revocation of In Forma Pauperis Status 9 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma 10 pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” The 11 good faith standard is an objective one, and good faith is demonstrated when an 12 individual “seeks appellate review of any issue not frivolous.” See Coppedge v. 13 United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, an 14 appeal is frivolous if it lacks any arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 15 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). 16 This Court finds that any appeal of this Order would not be taken in good 17 faith and would lack any arguable basis in law or fact. Accordingly, the Court 18 revokes Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status. 19 // 20 // ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 16 1 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED: 2 1. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 29) is 3 GRANTED. 4 2. Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status (ECF No. 6) is REVOKED. 5 3. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order, enter 6 JUDGMENT for Defendants, provide copies to the parties, and CLOSE the file. 7 DATED May 4, 2016. 8 9 10 THOMAS O. RICE Chief United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 17
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
