Bostic v. Dohrman et al

Filing 91

ORDER: Defendants' motion for summary judgment 34 is GRANTED, and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment 77 is DENIED. All remaining pending motions are denied as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 2/28/2013 by Judge Robert E. Jones. (gw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION

BILLY R. BOSTIC,
Plaintiff,
v.
TAMI DOHRMAN, et al.,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CV 10-315-JO
OPINION AND ORDER

JONES, District Judge:
Plaintiff Billy Raymond Bostic, acting prose, sued four officials of the Oregon Department
of Corrections for monetary damages and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 38 U.S.C.

§ 5301. Bostic alleges that defendants violated his constitutional and statutmy rights through two
prison policies. First, he challenges a prison policy under which he is prohibited from spending more
than $30 per month at the prison commissaty while he is indebted to the ODOC due to disciplinary
fines. Second, he challenges the practice under which benefits he receives from the Veterans

1 - OPINION AND ORDER

Administration are deposited into a reserve account that is protected from seizure to pay the ODOC
indebtedness. Defendants move for summary judgment (# 34). Bostic also moves for summary
judgment(# 77). For the following reasons, defendants' motion is granted and Bostic's motion is
denied.

BACKGROUND
Bostic is an inmate in the custody of the ODOC. He receives monthly benefits from the
Veterans Administration ("VA"). These funds, along with any other funds Bostic receives from
other sources, are deposited into his inmate trust account which is administered by the ODOC
Central Trust Unit under Oregon Administrative Rule ("OAR") 291-158-0015. Defendants are
cunent and former ODOC Central Trust officials.
The administrative rules provide that an inmate who is indebted to the ODOC is entitled to
spend no more than $30 per calendar month out of the funds deposited into his inmate trust account
for that calendar month; the remainder of the funds received by the inmate is applied to the inmate's
indebtedness. OAR 291-158-0065. An exception to this rule applies to any funds in the inmate trust
account that are VA benefits. In that case, the funds are not applied to the inmate's indebtedness.
Instead, they are placed in a reserve account that is not subject to collection to pay the inmate's
indebtedness to the ODOC.
In spite of this exception, Bostic contends defendants violated 38 U.S.C. § 5301, which
makes VA benefits exempt from the claims of creditors. He also contends defendants denied him
due process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants contend they complied
with Section 5301 by protecting Bostic's VA benefits from collection and did not violate the due

2 - OPINION AND ORDER

process clause. In addition, defendants contend Bostic's claims are batTed by sovereign immunity
under the Eleventh Amendment. They assert qualified immtmity on the issue of damages.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The district court should grant summary judgment if there are no genuine issues of material
fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). If the
moving party shows that there are no genuine issues of material fact, the non-moving patty must go
beyond the pleadings and designate facts showing an issue for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). A scintilla of evidence, or evidence that is merely colorable or not
significantly probative, does not present a genuine issue of material fact. United Steelworkers of

America v. Phelps Dodge, 865 F.2d 1539, 1542 (9th Cir. 1989). Reasonable doubts as to the
existence of a material factual issue are resolved against the moving patty and inferences drawn from
facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving patty. T. W. Elec. Serv. v. Pac. Elec.

Contractors, 809 F.2d 626, 630-31 (9th Cir. 1987).
DISCUSSION

I.

Statute of Limitations
The statute oflimitations applicable to an action pursuant to 42 U.S. C. § 1983 is the personal

injury statute of limitations of the state in which the cause of action arose. Alameda Books, Inc. v.

City ofLos Angeles, 631 F.3d 1031, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011). For cases arising in Oregon, the statute
oflimitations is two years. Douglasv. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1109 (9th Cir. 2009). Bostic filed his
complaint on March 22,2010, alleging that ODOC mishandled his VA benefits since 1998. Bostic's
claims based on events occurring before March 22, 2008, are barred by the statute of limitations.

\\\
3 - OPINION AND ORDER

II.

Due Process Claim
Section 1983 provides a cause of action against persons acting under color of state law who

violate rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Buckley v. City ofRedding, 66 F.3d 188, 190 (9th Cir.
1995). Prison officials, when acting in their official capacity, are acting under color of state law.

Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350, 1354 (9th Cir. 1985). Bostic alleges that defendants violated
his constitutional right to due process by placing his VA benefits in a reserve account and by
temporarily limiting the amount he may spend in the prison commissary while he is indebted to the
ODOC. Neither of the two actions presents a due process violation.
A prisoner claiming a due process violation must show a deprivation of a protected liberty
or property interest by govemment action that is arbitrmy or otherwise constitutionally deficient.

Ky. Dept. ofCorr. v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460 (1989). Although Bostic has a property interest
in his VA benefits and other funds in his inmate trust account, there is no protected interest in the
current use of those funds. See Ward v. Ryan, 623 F.3d 807, 813 (9th Cir. 2010) (inmate had no
protected property interest in the cunent use of funds placed in a dedicated discharge account held
for the inmate's benefit until discharge from prison even though he was serving a sentence of 197
years). Accordingly, Bostic has failed to show he was deprived of a protected interest.
The placement of Bostic's VA benefits in a reserve account does not deprive him of those
funds or limit his access to them. On the contrary, the reserve account protects the VA benefits from
the claims of creditors and prevents deprivation by gamishment, attachment, or any other collection
action. The funds are held in the reserve account for Bostic's benefit. There is no deprivation that
implicates the due process clause. Ward, 623 F.3d at 812-13.

4 - OPINION AND ORDER

The restrictions ODOC placed on Bostic's spending privileges do not deprive him of a
protected property interest. It is a tempormy limitation on Bostic's current use of funds posted to
his inmate tmst account. An inmate has no protected property interest in the cmTent use of funds.
See Ward v. Ryan, 623 F.3d at 813 (no protected property interest in cutTen! use of funds in inmate
trust account). Similarly, taken together, the two actions do not involve deprivation of a protected
interest. The funds in the reserve account will become available to Bostic upon his discharge from
prison or upon the payment of his indebtedness to ODOC, whichever happens first. In the event he
dies before paying the indebtedness or leaving prison, the funds will be released to his estate.
Accordingly, the prison policies operate as a limitation on Bostic's current use of funds and do not
implicate the due process clause. Ward v. Ryan, 623 F.3d at 813.
Bostic has also failed to show that the ODOC's policies were arbitrmy. The policy of
creating reserve accounts for VA benefits received by inmates reasonably vindicates the purposes
of federal statutory requirements making VA benefits exempt from the claims of creditors. 38
U.S.C. § 5301. The policy of restricting the spending privileges of inmates who are indebted to
ODOC reasonably provides for the enforcement of disciplinmy rules through the assessment and
collection of fines. OAR 291-105-0015.
Because Bostic has failed to show a deprivation of a protected liberty or property interest by
government action that is arbitrmy or otherwise constitutionally deficient, his due process claim fails.
Ky. Dept. ofCorr. v. Thompson, 490 U.S. at 460.

III.

Statutory Claim under 38 U.S. C. § 5301
Section 1983 can provide a cause of action for persons acting under color oflaw who have

violated rights guaranteed by federal statutes. Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 279 (2002).
5 - OPINION AND ORDER

Prison officials acting in their official capacity are acting under color of state law. Haygood, 769
F.2d at 1354. Bostic contends that defendants violated 38 U.S.C. § 5301 by placing his VA benefits
in a reserve account and by restricting his spending privileges while he is indebted to ODOC.
Section 5301 provides that VA benefits "shall not be assignable" and "shall be exempt from
the claim of creditors, and shall not be liable to attachment, levy, or seizure ... either before or after
receipt by the beneficiary." Under Section 5301, the creditors of veterans may not attach VA
benefits and veterans may not assign VA benefits yet to be received for payment of current debt. See

Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 896 (9th Cir. 2001) (prison officials violated Section 5301 by
permitting inmate to assign future benefits to pay current overdraft of trust account).
The placement of Bostic's VA benefits in a reserve account is not an attachment, levy, or
seizure of the funds. The funds in the reserve account are held for his benefit alone. They cannot
be used without his pe1mission, to pay any creditor, including the ODOC. Accordingly, the reserve
account policy fully implements the purposes of Section 5301.
The restrictions on Bostic's spending privileges do not violate Section 5301, because they
are unrelated to the source of his funds and do not compel Bostic to pay an indebtedness from his
VA benefits. The administrative mles provide that an inmate who is indebted to the ODOC is
entitled to spend no more than $30 per calendar month from funds deposited into his inmate trust
account for that calendar month. OAR 291-158-0065. The remainder of the funds received by the
inmate, unless they are VA benefits, is applied to the inmate's indebtedness. OAR 291-158-0065.
Any VA benefits received are not applied to the inmate's indebtedness, but are posted to a reserve
account and held for the inmate's benefit. Because Bostic has not shown an attachment, levy, ·
seizure, or assignment of VA benefits, he fails to show a violation of Section 5301.

6 - OPINION AND ORDER

VI.

Sovereign Immunity
The Eleventh Amendment bars actions for damages against state officials acting in their

official capacity. Flint v. Dennison, 488 F.3d 816, 824-25 (9th Cir. 2007). A state corrections
depmiment is a state agency entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Lucas v. Dept. of Carr.,
66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995); Taylor v. List, 88 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Bostic
challenges only the official policies of the ODOC and the official actions of defendants in
implementing those policies. Accordingly, Bostic's claims for damages arising from defendants'
activities in their official capacity m·e barred.

V.

Qualified Immunity
Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity. State officials are entitled to

qualified immunity from suits for civil damages "as long as their actions could reasonably have been
thought to be consistent with the rights they are alleged to have violated." Anderson v. Creighton,
483 U.S. 635, 638 (1987); Krainski v. Nevada ex rei. Bd ofRegents, 616 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir.
201 0). The detetmination involves two inquiries: "(1) whether, taken in the light most favorable to
the pmiy asserting the injury, the facts alleged show the officer's conduct violated a constitutional
right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established in light of the specific context of the case."

Krainski, 616 F.3d at 968, quoting al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 580 F.3d 949, 964 (9th Cir. 2009). I resolve
both questions against Bostic. For the reasons already described, he has failed to allege facts
showing a violation of constitutional or statutmy rights. If there has been such a violation, Bostic
has cited no authority clearly establishing a right to be free of the two policies he challenges in this
case, viz. the policy of protecting VA benefits by posting them to a reserve account and the policy

7 - OPINION AND ORDER

'

'

of enforcing disciplinary rules by restricting the spending privileges of inmates who are indebted to
ODOC for fines.
CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion for summary judgment (# 34) is
GRANTED, and plaintiffs motion for summmy judgment(# 77) is DENIED. All remaining
pending motions m·e denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this .:Z'8"'ciay of February, 2013.

United States District Judge

8 - OPINION AND ORDER