Title: Blaisdell v. Department of Public Safety.

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAL' REFORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER:

 

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

---000-

 

RICHARD BLAISDELL,
Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant

 

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
Respondent /Defendant-Appellee

 

No. 28736

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
(CIV. NO, 04-1-1455)

 

NOVEMBER 18, 2008

MOON, C.J., LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, AND DUFFY, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY ACOBAL J.

We hold that (1) the plain language of Hawai'i Revised

Statutes (HRS) § 353-20 (1993) expressly authorizes

+ Rs § 353-20 states:

 

Custody of moneys; accounts for coamitted perso
ete. All sums collected under thie chapter and any cther

Suthorized sources

Betson. The department shall maintain andividuel ledger
Recounts for gach committed person and shall issue te
Connitted person a quarterly statement showing credit:
Sebite

        

(Emphasis added.) (Boldface font in original.)
 

‘FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAF' REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTER***

 

Respondent /Defendant-Appellee Department of Public Safety (DPS or
Respondent) to maintain only one individual trust account for
prisoners pertaining to sums collected while committed,
(2) Respondent violated HRS § 353-20 because it maintained two
accounts with respect to Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant Richard
Blaisdell (Petitioner), one of which restricted withdrawals to
purposes determined by Respondent, and (3) interest accrued on
Petitioner's accounts must be paid. Inasmuch as the Intermediate
Court of Appeals (the ICA)? erred in holding to the contrary as
to aforesaid items (1), (2), and (3), the August 6, 2008 judgment
of the ICA is vacated, the August 29, 2007 final judgment of the
circuit court of the first circuit (the court) is reversed, and
the case is remanded to the court for disposition consistent with
this opinion. Petitioners claim that medical co-payment
deductions from one of his accounts were illegal is not
considered inasmuch as the court did not rule on this claim.
Petitioner filed an application for writ of certiorari
fon August 25, 2008, seeking review of the ICA’s judgment filed on
August 6, 2008, pursuant to its July 18, 2008 memorandum opinion
vacating the court’s August 29, 2007 final judgment in favor of
Respondent and affirming in part and vacating and remanding in

part the court’s August 29, 2007 “Order (1) Granting

+ the memorandum opinion was issued by Presiding Judge Daniel &.
Foley and Associate Judges Craig H. Nakamura and Katherine G. Leonard

2
“FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER"

 

[Petitioners] Motion for Joinder of Actions (2) Denying
[Petitioners] Motion for Summary Judgment; & (3) Granting
[Respondents] Cross Motion for Summary Judgment.” Blaisdell ws
Dep't of Pub, Safety, No, 28736, 2008 WL 2815552, at *4 (App.
Jul, 18, 2008) (mem.).

I

aA

Petitioner is a Hawai'i inmate currently incarcerated at

the Saguaro Correctional Center in Arizona, On August 10, 2004,
Petitioner filed a Complaint for Interpleader and Declaratory
Judgment (First Complaint). According to Petitioner, Respondent,
pursuant to its Corrections Policy (COR) (later identified as
COR.02.12 § 3.0.23), divided the money earned by inmates into two
accounts, a “spendable account” and a “restricted account.”
Petitioner claimed that inmates were not allowed to use the money

placed into the restricted account to their liking, and alleged

> Respondent's cOR-02.12 § 3.0.2 states as follows:

The trust account shall consist of two portions or accounts,
a spendable account and a restricted account.

 

‘The money a divided between the two accounts as set forth in
con.02-12 §'3.0.

 

‘As mandated by Department Policy COR.14.02, Innate Work,
Program/Compensat ion, fifty percent {50%) in excess of $20
in any calendar month of all'money earned by an inmate while
incarcerated shall be held ina restricted account which the
inmate cannot draw from excent andes the provisions of this
policy. Ihe Balance of the nosey earned shall be deposited
ina -sbentable account which the inmate may diay from.

(Bephasis added.)
 

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***
that this practice amounted to garnishment of inmates’ earnings

in violation of HRS § 352-22 (Supp. 2007)* and HRS § 352-22.5

 

(Supp. 2007).5 Petitioner requested the court “to issue 3
Declaratory Judgment ordering the return of all monies that are
being held illegally by (Respondent] and to issue an order to
cease this illegal practice[.)” Along with his First Complaint,
Petitioner submitted a Declaration in Support of Request to
Proceed in Forma Pauperis (In Forma Pauperis Request).

on August 13, 2004, the court denied Petitioner's tn

Forma Pauperis Request and issued him a Notice for Payment of

 

Fees. On August 30, 2004, the court dismissed without prejudice

the First Complaint because of Petitioner’s non-payment of fees.

 

+ as § 353-22, entitied “Earnings exempt from garnishnent, ete.,”
states that “[plo manevs earned by a committed person and held by the
Gepartnent, to any amount whatsoever,

Seany like process of attachment for any cause of claim against the committed
Person, sxcept as provided for in section 363-22.5.” (Baphesis added.
5 ups § 353-22.5 provides as follows:

Garnishnent to cover sonbudgeted costs. All soneys
received by windfall or earned by a committed person shall,
be subiect co-aarnishnents leuv. of any Tike process of
for # cause of action oF claim
against. the committed person dn the following order of
pelority:
(2) child support. payments by order of the court:
(3) Replacenent costs for any fackiity damage that
Wy have been caused by the committed person and
11 other costs associated with the facility
mage) and
(4) Reimbursement for the extraordinary cost of
photocopying or postage which has been advanced
By the Separtment. for litigation purposes.
ALL moneys collected by the department pursuant £0 paragraph
(3) or (4) shall be used to reimburse, in whole oF in parts
the nonbudgeted costs and expenses,

   

    

 

(Emphases added.) (Boldfaced font in original.)
4
 

“*"*FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S AWAIT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Petitioner appealed this decision. On January 18, 2007, this
court held in Blaisdell v, Department of Public Safety, 113
Hawai'i 315, 320, 151 P.3d 796, 801 (2007), that the court abused
its discretion in denying Petitioner’s In Forma Pauperis Request
and remanded the case for hearing on the merits.

on February 16, 2007, Petitioner filed a Motion for
Joinder of Action and Motion for Preliminary Injunction (First
Joinder Notion), seeking to add to his First Complaint a claim
that Respondent was illegally deducting medical co-payments fron
his account in violation of HRS § 355-22.5. According to
Petitioner, “{oJn February 09, 2007, the medical unit deducted
$3.00 from (his) earnings{.]” Petitioner also related that
“$1.27 was deducted for the restricted account that is also
illegal [.1”

In his First Joinder Motion, Petitioner sought an
injunction against Respondent “to cease taking money from the
“inmates’ earnings” and to have the $3.00 that was illegally
taken from [Petitioner’s] earnings returned to him until such
time that he has . . . money from either a windfall or someone
sends him money from the outside in excess of $10.00 as the rules
so state.” Attached to the joinder was Exhibit A, Petitioner's
statenent of earnings as of "02/08/2007." Petitioner related
that Exhibit A showed the withdrawal of $1.27 from his spendable

account and deposit of that amount into his restricted account.
 

-FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

Petitioner also attached Exhibit B, a statement indicating a
withdrawal of $3.00 from his account for “Sick Call,” ines @
medical co-payment, and Exhibit C, a letter from Petitioner to
Respondent’s bookkeeper, objecting to deduction for the medical
co-payment amount.

On March 19, 2007, Petitioner filed a complaint,
similar to the first one, also entitled “Complaint for
Interpleader and Declaratory Judgnent,” (Second Complaint)
essentially reiterating his allegations above, this time averring
not only a violation of HRS § 353-22, but also of the due process
clause of the United States Constitution. New to his claims,
Petitioner alleged that Respondent had “[fJor years” been
violating the due process rights of conmitted persons by “not
paying the inmates interest on the illegally obtained money.”
Similar to his First Complaint, Petitioner requested a
Declaratory Judgment on the issues of garnishment, interest, and
medical co-payments as follows:

(Potstioner) asks this court for a Declaratory Judgment
regarding the validity of the policy snd procedure that
Allows (Respondent) £0 garnish; levy, oF {1] otherwise
teach the earnings Of the committed person and remove...

 

and place it in a second restricted account. and [2] to
fot pay the committed person accrued interest on’the soney
Ehat was garnished from nis earsings(] . . + {and 3] take

Sedical co-peymenta from the connltted person's earnings.)
Petitioner asserted that “(t)here is no place in the HRS § 353

[sic] that uses the word ‘restricted,’ there is also no place in

 

the statute that mentions or even implies that there are two
 

/“FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAF'L REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

 

accounts, . . . (one) account that the committed person can{Jnot
have access too [sic].” (Emphasis in original.)

on March 28, 2007, the court issued an Order denying
without prejudice Petitioner’s Firat Joinder Motion and Second
Complaint on the basis that Petitioner's First Complaint had not
yet been served on Respondent. On July 2, 2007, Petitioner
served his First Complaint on Respondent.

on July 17, 2007, Petitioner filed a second Motion for

Joinder of Action (Second Joinder Motion), e!

 

ntsally
reiterating hie prior claims. Petitioner again took issue with

Respondent’

 

establishment of restricted accounts, as well as

deductions from his earnings for medical co-payments. Finally,

 

Petitioner claimed that Respondent had “never paid any interest
on any of the illegally garnished money fron innate earnings|.]”

on July 20, 2007, Respondent filed its Answer to
Petitioner's First Complaint. In its Answer, Respondent did not
deny that it established two accounts, but merely stated that its
policies spoke for themselves.

8.

on July 23, 2007, Petitioner filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment. In his motion, Petitioner reiterated that the language
of HRS § 353-20 allowed Respondent to establish “only one
account” for committed persons. Paraphrasing HRS § 353-22,

Petitioner stated that the statute precluded Respondent from
 

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

 

 

garnishing, levying, or attaching any monies earned by conmitted
persons, “except for the four reasons set forth in HRS § 353-
2.5." According to Petitioner, Respondent violated the statute
because, pursuant to COR.02.12, it established a restricted
account for conmitted persons and placed a “large portion of the
committed persons’ earnings into” the restricted account, thereby
“illegally garnishing or attaching the committed persons
earnings.”

Petitioner again claimed the Respondent was “not paying
any accrued interest for the money in the legal [spendable]
account oF the illegal second (restricted account,” thus
violating his due process rights.‘ Petitioner did not
specifically raise the issue of deductions for medical co-
payments from his account in his motion for summary judgnent.

on August 1, 2007, Respondent filed a Memorandum in
opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross Motion for
Summary Judgment (Cross Motion). In the Cross Motion’s statenent
of facts, Respondent essentially quoted verbatim from HRS § 353-

20,7 HRS § 353-21 (1993), and HRS § 353-22.5,? as well as from

 

 see supra note 14
22
**¥FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

 

committed person, except as provided for in section 353-225.”
(Emphasis added.)

HRS § 353-22.5 allows garnishment, levy, or like
process in four specific circumstances as noted before, that are
not relevant here.

In response, Respondent and the court relied on that
part of HRS § 353-20 authorizing the department to allow funds to
be withdrawn in euch amounts and for such purpose as it may deem
proper.

First, with respect to Petitioner's restricted account
claim, HRS § 353-20 provides that monies shall be deposited “into
an individual trust account[.]"" As Petitioner argues, the
statute on its face does not authorize the trust account to be
divided into two accounts, one of which is restricted as to
withdrawals. See Hay, Teamsters ¢ Allied Workers, Local 966 v,
Dep't of Labor & Indus. Relations, 110 Hawai'i 259, 266, 132 P.3d
368, 375 (2006) (reaffirming that “where the statutory language
is plain and unambiguous the appellate courts’ sole duty is to
give effect to its plain and obvious meaning” (brackets, internal
quotation marks, and citation omitted))}. Only one account is

expressly authorized.

% Contrary to Petitioner's position, it 1s evident the monies in the
restricted account are not garnished under SRS § 353-22. See Murray, 63 Haw
at 21, 621 F.2d at 340 (stating thet in HRS chapter 353, “"itke process’ Le
reference to the Various creditor remedies and processes available in the
‘enforcement of civil judgment and orders”)

23

 

 
 

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

It may be argued that the restricted account can be
justified as appropriate under HRS § 353-20, simply because it
was “deemed proper” by Respondent as Respondent, the court, and
the ICA apparently believed. However, the lack of any
ascertainable standard in HRS § 353-21 by which to determine the
proper exercise of Respondent's determination as to what is
“deem(ed] proper” renders the statute unenforceable. See State
wales, 51 Haw. 516, 522, 465 P.2d $73, $77 (1970) (concluding
that term in statute provided adequate standard by which the
courts could ascertain the reasonableness of the rules
promulgated by the agency); see also Woodruff v. Keale, 64 Haw.
85, 95, 637 P.2d 760, 767 (1981) (stating that statute must
“provide() clear guidelines so as to prevent arbitrary
application and enforcement” in context of parental termination
rights (citations omitted)); cf, State v. Lee, 75 Haw. 80, 93,
856 P.2d 1246, 1254 (1993) (statute must “‘provide(] explicit
standards for those who apply’ the statute, in order to avoid
‘arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement’” (quoting Gravned v,
City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09 (1972).

Second, Petitioner's right to accrued interest is
dually protected via “(1) his Fifth Amendment right to just
compensation for the ‘taking’ of his interest, and (2) his
Fourteenth Amendment due process right, which prohibits prison

officials from confiscating accrued net interest without

24
 

‘“*FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER™

 

statutory authorization and process.” Vance, 345 F.3d at 1088
(footnote omitted). With respect to payment of interest, the

following is germane:

[Plroperty rights can -- and often do -- exist wholly
Indepenaently of statutes recognizing them as such. Indeed,
as the Supreme Court’s decisions Genonstrate,
Gonstitutionally protected property rights can =~ and often
Go'-- exist daspite statutes(.]
| ithe Suprene Court, reaffirmed its comnitnent to
the “interest follows principal” rule se a constitutionally
Eelevant aepect of Takings Clause jurisprudence: t]he
open

Enincinalin reconieing 2 protected property interest in
‘suxned interest incase.

Schneider v, Calif, Dep't of Corrections, 151 F.3d 1194, 1199-
1200 (9th Cir. 1998) (first emphasis in original and second

 

 

 

  

 

emphasis added).

As noted before, Respondent’s COR.14.02 § 4.0.11 does

 

quire that interest accrued on the restricted, i.e., mandated,
savings account, must be paid to Petitioner. In this regard, the
ICA's determination that “[Respondent) produced no admissible
evidence that interest was in fact paid or that interest was not
required to be paid on (Petitioner’s) inmate accounts[,]”
Blaisdell, 2008 WL 2815552, at *3 (emphasis added), appears
partially wrong, in light of Respondent's COR.14.02 § 4.0.11
However, Respondent did not apply for certiorari from the Ica’s
determination. In any event, whatever dispute there was as to
what interest was actually paid, if any, and on which accounts,
for the reasons stated above, interest due must be awarded on
Petitioner's accounts and may be determined on remand.

25
‘OR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAF' REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTER***

 

 

vin,
based on the foregoing matters, the Ich erred as to ite
ruling on restricted accounts and Petitioner's right to accrued
Snterest. The August 6, 2008 JCA judgment is vacated and the
court's August 25, 2007 final judgment is reversed and the case
remanded to the couct with instructions (1) to vacate the August
25, 2007 order granting Respondent's erors-motion for summary
Judgment and denying Petitioners notion for sumary judgpent end
the August 29, 2007 judgment thereon, (2) to enter judgment
declaring the “restricted” account violative of HRS § 253-20 and
to order such relief to Petitioner as may be appropriate as 2
result of such declaration, and (2) t0 order interest to the
extent due but not yet credited, to be paid on Fetitioner’s
sccounts. Petitioner's claim that the nedical co-payment
deduction was violative of HRS § 353-22.5 48 not decided because
4 was not ruled on by the court and remains pending for
tsposition by the court.
pet itioner/plaintifé- ‘Bir licineo
Sppellanes bro se.
Christine E. Savage and Peenee Cae out
Coton te tnageh Deputy
AetStneya conceal, seate Bay
Fespandent/dotendant~ Gans Oats
ipelles,

26