Las Vegas Sun

March 29, 2024

Court rules prison violated inmates’ rights

CARSON CITY -- A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that Nevada prison officials violated the constitutional rights of inmates by taking unauthorized deductions from their personal accounts.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said prison officials also took unauthorized retaliatory action against two inmates who were fired from their prison jobs after refusing to sign waivers to give up their right to the interest earned on their accounts and refusing to consent to unauthorized deductions.

The court ruled in favor of inmates Daniel Vance and Timothy Johnson, who challenged the 1994 policy of the prison and sued prison officials and former Gov. Bob Miller. None of the prison officials named in the suit are still employed in the Department of Corrections, a prison spokesman said.

Robert Brundage, a San Francisco lawyer who handled the case for the two inmates, said the decision vindicates certain rights of inmates. Unless the state of Nevada appeals, he said the case will go back to the federal district court in Reno for further hearings on the claim by the inmates for damages.

Brundage said the practical impact of this case is that prison officials cannot order inmates to waive their rights and then take retaliatory action against them if they refuse to waive their rights.

Tom Sargent, a spokesman for the state attorney general's office, had little reaction to the ruling, except to say that it is an "unfinished case" because there will be further hearings in the federal district court in Reno.

Each inmate in prison has a personal property account that can accumulate up to $200 and the remaining money is put into a savings account. The money is invested and the interest earned is kept by the prison. Last fiscal year the interest amounted to about $58,000 but the year before when interest rates were high, the investment yielded $112,000.

Vance and Johnson, both serving life terms for murder from Washoe County, lost their prison jobs when they refused to sign a release stating they would forgo the interest earned on their accounts and allow the prison to deduct any expense incurred by the prison on the inmate's behalf whether it was voluntary or involuntary.

The court, in a decision written by Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, said the prison has a right to charge inmates for the administration of their accounts, but the courts "have clearly held that the Due Process Clause protects inmates from unauthorized deductions."

The decision also noted that the justices concluded "that the prison administrators unconstitutionally retaliated against Vance for refusing to waive his right to accrued net interest and to consent to the use of unauthorized deductions."

Those officials named in the suit claimed qualified government immunity from suit. But the court said the prison "had fair notice that it could not retaliate against inmates for exercising their constitutional rights and was sufficiently aware that an underlying due process right was implicated.

"Yet when Vance and Johnson refused to sign the fiscal agreement, they were fired. No reasonable official in such a position would have concluded that his or her actions were lawful."

In a footnote to the decision, the court said those officials who were sued relied on the "misguided advice from the attorney general's office" in trying to force inmates to sign the agreement. But the court said that did not protect them from suit.

However, the court said the officials could use this in future hearings to show they made a "good faith" effort to comply with the law. And that may lessen the damage claims against them.

The court said the two inmates were entitled to a summary judgment on their retaliation claim.

The case returns to U.S. District Judge David Hagen for additional hearings. Brundage said he was appointed by the 9th Circuit as a pro bono attorney to handle the appeal and he did not know whether he would continue on the case when it returns to Reno.

archive