A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tthe det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s the ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed underthe t erm s and c o n d itio n s o f

1 0 th C ir . R . 3 6 .3 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### O ct ob e r19,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C lerk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT NA THA NI EL W . ELLI BEE,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. C H A R L E S E . SI M M O N S, W ar den, E l D o r a d o C o rr e c t i o n a l F a c i l i ty, Off i c i a l a n d Pr i v a t e Ca p a c i ty ; LI ZA A . M E N D O Z A , L e g a l C o u n se l, K D O C , O ffi c i a l a n d P r i v a t e C a p a c i ty; E D W A R D R . P U G H , K a n sa s S tate S e n a t o r , Offi c i a l Cap a c i ty ; J AY S C O T T E M L E R , K a n sa s S tate S e n a t o r , O ffi c i a l C a p a c i ty; T E D P O W E R S , K a n sa s S tate R e p r e s e n t a t i v e , O ffi c i a l C a p a c i ty,

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 05- 3479 ( D. C. No. 0 3 - CV - 3 1 9 4 - J W L)

(D . K a n .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e T A C H A , C h ie f J u d g e , O’ BRI EN and M c CO NNELL, C i rcui tJudg es.- 2-

Pl ai nt i ff N athani el W . E l l i bee, a K ans as s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, a p p e a l s th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d i s p o s i t i o n o f h i s c l a i ms b r o u g h tu n d e r4 2 U. S . C. § 1983 chal l engi ng deduct i ons fr om hi s pr i s on i ncome. W e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d a ffir m . B ackgr ound M r . E l l i bee i s s ervi ng a l i fe s ent ence form ur der . H e has been e m pl oy ed dur i ng hi s i ncar cer at i on forw hi ch he w as pai d w ages . Fr om A ugus t1996 thr ough M ay2001, the pr i s on deduct ed $3, 223. 09 fr om hi s i nm at e trus tacc ountpur s uant t o a K ans as s t at e s t atut e thatdi r ect ed fi ve per centof ce rt ai n i nm at e w ages t o be p a id to a c ri m e v ic tim s c o m p e n s a tio n f u n d . See K a n . S ta t. A n n . § 7 5 -5 2 1 1 (b ). Pr i s on pe r s on ne l pr omul ga t e d I nt e rna l M a na ge mentPol i c ya nd Pr oc e du r e ( I M PP) 04- 109 t o i m pl ementthe s t atut e. I M PP 04-109 pr ovi des thatfi ve per centof a p ri s o n e r’ s g ro s s w a g e s s h a ll b e p a id to a c ri m e v ic tim s c o m p e n s a tio n f u n d . M r . E l l i bee c ont ends that§ 75- 5211( b) does notappl yt o hi m and the deduc t i ons viol at ed h i s const i tuti on al ri gh t s. M r . E l l i bee f

i l ed an a dm i ni s tr at i ve compl ai ntw i th the J oi ntC om m i tt ee on Speci al C l ai m s agai ns tthe St at e, as w el l as a pr i s on gr i evanc e, chal l engi ng the fiv e -p e rc e n t d e d u c tio n s. D e fe n d a n ts P u g h , E m ler , an d P o w e rs, K a n sa s s tate legislat o rs, ap p are n tl yco m p ri sed the c o m m ittee tha t con side red M r. E ll ibee ’s a d m in istra tiv e c laim . D e fe n d a n t M e n d o z a , a S p e c ial A ss ista n t A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, r epr es ent ed the s t at e’ s i nt er es t s befor e the comm i tt ee. B oth the admi ni s tr at i veMar t i nezv. A ar on , 5 7 0 F . 2 d 3 1 7 (10 th C ir . 1 9 7 8 ). 1

- 3- cl ai m and the pr i s on gr i evanc e w er e deni ed, thus s at i s fy i ng the exhaus t i on re q u ir e m e n t o f

4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 9 7 e (a ). M r . E l l i bee s ued, nami ng as defe ndant s the thr ee K ans as l egi s l at or s , the as s i s t antatt orneygener al , and the pr i s on w ar den. T he di s tr i ctcourts cr eene d the c o m p lain t p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 A (a ) a n d (b ), an d d ism iss e d a ll d e fe n d a n ts excep tthe w arden b ecause the com plai nt fai l ed to st at e a cl ai m for r el i ef ag ai nst thos e defendant s . T he courtthen or der ed a Mar t i nez re p o rt, an d u lti m a tely 1 gr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entt o the w ar den. T he di s tr i ctcourtl at erdeni ed M r . E l l i bee’ s pos t -j udgm entm ot i on. O n appea l , M r . E l l i bee a r gues the fi ve- per centdeduct i ons fr om hi s w ages v io late d h is p ro c e d u ra l an d su b sta n tiv e d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts, a s w e ll as h is rig h ts u n d e r th e E q u a l P ro tec tio n C lau se a n d th e F o u rth , F if th , S e v e n th , an d E ig h th A m e n d m e n ts to th e U n ite d S ta te s C o n s titu tio n . Standar ds of

R evi ew W e re v iew d e n o v o th e d istric t co u rt’s o rd e r g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t, a p p lyin g th e s a m e s ta n d a rd a s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . Sm i th v. C um m i ngs , 445 F. 3d 1254, 1258 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . “Sum m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e ‘ i f the pl eadi ngs , depos i t i ons , ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es , and admi s s i ons on fi l e, t ogetherw i th the affi davi t s , i f any , s how thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o any- 4-

m at er i al fac tand thatthe movi ng partyi s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ’ ” Id. (qu o ti n g F ed . R . C iv. P. 56 (c)). W e m ayaffirm the d istri ct co u rt ’s j udgm enton anygr ounds , even thos e notr el i ed upon bythe di s tr i ctcourt , s o l ong a s th e re c o rd is s u ffic ie n t to p e rm it c o n c lu s io n s o f la w . B - S St eelof

Kan. , Inc. v. Tex. Indus . , Inc. , 4 3 9 F .3 d 6 5 3 , 6 6 6 n .1 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). M r. E lli b e e is re p re s e n tin g h im s e lf

o n a p p e a l s o h is p le a d in g s w ill b e c o n s tru e d lib e ra lly. See Hai nes v. Kerner , 4 0 4 U .S . 5 1 9 , 5 2 0 -2 1 (1 9 7 2 ). D is cus s i on “In order t o p revai l on [his ] 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3 clai m , plai nti ff m ust demonstr at e that[he] s uffe r ed a de pr i vat i on of a feder al l ypr ot ect ed r i ght . ” C ro w n P o int I

, L L Cv. Interm o u n tain R u ra l E lec. A ss’n , 319 F. 3d 1211, 1216 ( 10th C i r . 2003) . T he hea r tof M r . E l l i bee’ s cl ai m i s thatthe fi ve- per cent d ed u cti o n s are in v iolati o n o f state law , sp ec ifi ca ll yK an . S tat . A n n . § 7 5 -52 1 1 (b), a c laim h e c a n n o t b rin g in a § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n . S e c tio n 1 9 8 3 p ro v id e s a re m e d yo n ly w h e n th e p lain tiff

is d e p riv e d o f

a rig h t o r p riv ileg e u n d e r fe d e ra l law ; itis n o t a v e h icle fo r c h a llen g in g w h e th e r a sta te p riso n re g u latio n is a u th o riz e d u n d e r sta te l aw . Such a cl ai m m us tbe br oughti n s t at e court . W i th thati n m i nd, w e cons i der M r. E lli b e e ’s a rg u m e n ts o n a p p e a l. P rocedu ralD ue P rocess M r . E l l i bee a s s ert s thathi s pr ocedur al due pr oces s r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed beca us e he w as notaffor ded a he ar i ng befor e the deduc t i ons w er e made, and the- 5-

pos t - depr i vat i on pr ocee di ngs he di d r ece i ve w er e i nadequa t e. T o eval uat e a p roc ed u ral du e p roc ess c lai m , w e a sk w h ethe r th e ind ividu al “p o sses s[e d ] a pr ot ect ed pr opertyi nt er es tt o w hi ch due pr oces s pr ot ect i on w as appl i cabl e, ” and w h e th e r a n a p p ro p ri a te le v e l o f p ro c e s s w a s a ffo rd e d . C am ugl i a v. C i t y of A lbuquer que , 4 4 8 F .3 d 1 2 1 4 , 1 2 1 9 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). M r . E l l i bee c ont ends thathe w as ent i t l ed t o due pr oces s t o es t abl i s h thathe w as notor der ed t o payr es t i tut i on, and ther efor e, thathi s w ages w er e nots ubj ect t o the fi ve- per centdeduct i ons forthe cr i m e vi ct i m s compensa t i on fund. B ut I M P P 0 4 - 1 0 9 p r o v i d e s fo rfi v e p e r c e n to f p r i s o n wa g e s t o b e p a i d t o th e v i c t i ms fund r egar dl es s of w hetherthe i nm at e w as or der ed t o payr es t i tut i on. T her efor e, ther e w as no need fora hea r i ng t o det erm i ne i f M r . E l l i bee ha d out s t andi ng obl i gat i ons i n the form of r es t i tut i on, becaus e the deduc t i ons pr oper l yw oul d have been made ei therw ay . A ccor di ngl y , as s um i ng w i thoutdeci di ng thathe had a p rotec ted p rop ertyinterest i n h is prison w ag es, w e c o n clud e tha t M r. E ll ibee ’s p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e s s ri g h ts w e re n o t a b ri d g e d . Su bstan t i ve D ue P rocess M r . E l l i bee a l l eges thatW ar den Si m m ons w as “ups etand di s grunt l ed” becau se hi s sent ence d i d n ot i nclude an order of res t i tuti on . A plt . B r. at27 . A s a r es ul t , acc or di ng t o M r . E l l i bee, the w ar den i m pl ement ed I M PP 04-109 t o depr i ve hi m of a port i on of hi s pr i s on i ncome, a “bl at antabus e of pow er ” thatvi ol at es s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p ro c e s s . Id. a t 2 8 .- 6-

“ S p e c ific u se s o f

e x e c u tiv e p o w e r v io late su b sta n tiv e d u e p ro c e ss o n ly w hen they‘ s hock the cons ci ence . ’ ” R ectorv. C i t y & C ount

y of D enve r , 348 F. 3d 935, 948 ( 10th C i r . 2003) ( quot i ng C o u n ty o f Sa c ra m e n to v . L e w is , 523 U . S. 833, 8 4 6 -4 7 (1 9 9 8 )). It d o e s n o t sh o c k th e c o n sc ien c e to re q u ire in m a tes to c o n trib u te a s m a ll p a rto f

th e irp ri s o n w a g e s to a c ri m e v ic tim s c o m p e n s a tio n f u n d . A c c o rd in g ly, w e d e n yth e s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p ro c e s s c la im . E qualP r ot ect i on Forhi s equal pr ot ect i on cl ai m , M r . E l l i bee a s s ert s thatthe fi ve- per cent d e d u c t i o n wa s a p p l i e d d i ffe r e n t l yt o h i m a n d o th e rme d i u m- a n d ma x i mu mse c u rityin m a tes th a n to m in im u m -se c u rityin m a tes . H e “ d o e s n o t co n ten d [ h e ] is ei thera mem berof a s us pectcl as s orw as deni ed a f undament al r i ght , ” and he does notar gue thatthe s t atut e orpr i s on pol i cyi s not“r at i onal l yr el at ed t o a l egi t i m at e governm entpurpos e. ” G r ace Uni t ed Methodis tC hur ch v. C i t y of C heye nne , 4 5 1 F . 3 d 6 4 3 , 6 5 9 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) . Co n s e q u e n t l y , h e h a s n o ts h o wn a n e q u a l p ro te c tio n v io la tio n . Four th A m endm ent M r. E lli b e e a rg u e s o n a p p e a l th a t th e d istric t co u rt re f u se d to c o n sid e r h is F o u rth A m e n d m e n t cla im , ev e n th o u g h th e c o u rt g ra n ted h im lea v e to a m e n d h is compl ai ntt o i ncl ude s uch a c l ai m . A s the di s tr i ctcourtexpl ai ned, the or der g ra n tin g lea v e to a m e n d a lso o rd e re d M r. E lli b e e to file a n a m e n d e d c o m p lain t, b u t h e n e v e r d id . T h e re fo re , the d istric t co u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n w h e n it- 7-

l at erdecl i ned t o perm i tM r . E l l i bee t o br i ng hi s Four th A m endmentcl ai m aft er d is c o v e ry h a d c lo s e d . C f. D u n c a n v . Ma n a g e r, D e p ’t o f Sa fety , 397 F. 3d 1300, 1 3 1 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (“ W e re v iew a d e n ial o f a m o tio n to su p p lem e n t a co m p lai n t fo r ab u se o f d iscreti o n . ”). F i f th A m endm ent F o r his claim u n d er the F ifth A m en d m en t, M r. E ll ibee p o ints ou t th at pa rt o f th e five-p erc en t ded u cti o n s p aid to the c ri m e v ict im s co m p en sati o n fu n d w ere u se d to f

u n d th e C rim e V ictim s C o m p e n sa tio n B o a rd . T h e re fo re , ac c o rd in g to hi m , the deduc t i ons w er e an unl aw ful t aki ng of pr i vat e pr opertyforpubl i c us e. T h e F if th A m e n d m e n t T a k in g s C lau se p ro v id e s th a t “p riv a te p ro p e rty[ sh a ll not ] be t aken forpubl i c us e, w i thoutj us tcompensa t i on. ” U.S. C o n st. a m e n d . V . T h a t c la u s e is a p p lic a b le to th e S ta te s th ro u g h th e F o u rt e e n th A m e n d m e n t. L in g le v. C hevr on U. S. A . Inc. , 544 U . S. 528, 536 ( 2005) . “A partychal l engi ng governm ent al act i on as an uncons t i tut i onal t aki ng bear s a s ubs t ant i al bur den. ” P i t ts burg C ount

y RuralWat erD is t . No. 7 v. C i t y of McAl es t er , 358 F. 3d 694, 718 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). We a s s u me th e fi v e - p e r c e n td e d u c t i o n s we r e a u th o r i z e d u n d e rs t a t e l a w, K a n . S tat. A n n . § 7 5 -5 2 1 1 . M r. E lli b e e c o n c e d e s th a t th e sta te s tatu te is cons t i tut i onal . T he pr i s on r egul at i on, I M PP 04-109, i s on the s ame cons t i tut i onal fo o tin g a s th e sta tu te. A c c o rd in g ly , w e h o ld th a t M r. E lli b e e h a s n o t ca rrie d h is- 8-

s ubs t ant i al bur den t o s how thatthe deduc t i ons , author i zed bys t at e l aw and pr i s on re g u la tio n , w e re a n u n c o n s titu tio n a l ta k in g . Seve nth A m endm ent M r . E l l i bee ne xtcl ai m s thatthe doctr i ne of c ol l at er al es t oppel barr ed the fi ve- per centdeduct i ons becaus e theyw er e a ne w s ent ence of r es t i tut i on, added w ell af ter his origin al sen tenc ing . H e inv o k es th e S ev en th A m en d m en t’ s r eexa m i nat i on cl aus e, ar gui ng thatthi s att emptt o add t o hi s s ent ence w as u n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l . Bu tM r . El l i b e e ’ s c l a i m i s n o ta S e v e n th Ame n d me n tc l a i m; ra th e r, itis a re p a c k a g in g o f h is a rg u m e n t th a t th e sta te s tatu te d o e s n o t ap p lyto h im . A s w e h a v e h e ld a b o v e , th is c la im is n o t c o g n iz a b le in a § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n . E ighth A m endm ent M r. E lli b e e a rg u e s th a t th e fiv e -p e rc e n t d e d u c tio n s v io late d h is E ig h th A m endmentr i ghtt o be fr ee f r om cruel and unus ual puni s hm ent . T he deduc t i ons w er e notpuni s hm ent , how ever . R ather , theyw er e a s t at e- l aw r equi r ementthat i f a n i n ma t e e a rn e d wa g e s , fi v e - p e r c e n two u l d b e d e d u c t e d a n d p a i d t o a c r i me vi ct i m s compensa t i on fund. A gai n, thi s cl ai m i s nothi ng m or e than an a r gum ent thatthe s t at e s t atut e does notappl yt o hi m , a cl ai m he ca nnotbr i ng under§ 1983.- 9- C onclus i on M r . E l l i bee’ s m ot i on t o s tr i ke appe l l ee’ s br i ef i s deni ed. H i s m ot i on r eques t i ng thi s courtt o or derthe pr i s on t o s ubm i tthe fi l i ng fee i n ful l i s deni ed as m o o t. H e is re m in d e d th a t h e is o b lig a ted to c o n tin u e m a k in g p a rtial p a ym e n ts u n til th e e n tire fe e h a s b e e n p a id . T h e ju d g m e n t o f th e d istric t co u rt is A F F IR M E D . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M ich a e l W . M c C o n n e ll C i r cui tJ udge