T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * 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 . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

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

### A u gu s t30,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
M I CH A EL B A CK U S, P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. N o. 07- 1063 JO S E P H O R T IZ , E x ec u ti v e D ir ec tor, Col o . D. O. C. ; DEN NI S P . DI AZ, Co n t r o l l e r , Co l o . D. O. C. ; L . D. HAY, D i r ect orA dm i n. & Fi nance , C ol o. D .O .C ., D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. ( D. C. No . 0 5 - c v - 0 4 9 7 - REB - BNB) ( D . C ol or ado)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T *
B efor e B R I S C O E , E B E L , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt o honort he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al argum ent. S ee F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (f) ; 10 th C i r. R . 34 . 1(G ). T he case is , th e re fo re , o rd e re d s u b m itte d w ith o u t o ra l a rg u m e n t.In pert i nen tpart , C olo. R ev. S t at . § 1 6-18.5- 10 6 p rovi des: 1 (1) W hen ever a person i s sent enced t o the dep artm ent of corr ect i on s, t he depa r t m entof corr ect i ons i s author i zed t o conductan i nves t i gat i on i nt o t he fi nanci al ci r cumst ance s of the defendant , as des cr i bed i n s ect i on 16- 18. 5- 104( 3) , forpurpos es of det erm i ni ng the defe ndant ’ s abi l i t yt o paycourtor der ed cos t s , s ur char ges , r es t i tut i on, t i m e paym entfee s , l at e fe es , and otherfi nes , fee s , ors ur char ges pur s uantt o s ect i on 16- 18. 5- 110. 2 P lai n ti ff M icha el B ac k u s (B ac k u s), a C o lorad o stat e p ri so n er a p p ea ri n g p ro s e, chal l enges t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entdi s m i s s i ng hi s 42 U . S. C . § 1983 act i on agai ns templ oy ees of the C ol or ado D epart m entof C o r r e c t i o n s ( C D O C ) fo ra l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n s o f h i s c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t s . We e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d a ffi r m. I B ackus w as convi ct ed of f i r s tdegr ee mur derand cons pi r acyi n C ol or ado s t at e court , s ent ence d t o l i fe i m pr i s onm ent , and w as or der ed t o payoverone m i l l i on dol l ar s i n r es t i tut i on, courtcos t s , and fi nes ( her ei naft er , cr i m i nal j udgm ent ) . A s t at e di s t r i ctcour ts ubs equent l ydeni ed B ackus ’ r eques tfort he return o f f

u n d s ($2 , 6 5 2 . 2 6 ) th at ha d b ee n seize d d u ri n g h is arrest. T h at co u rt det erm i ned B ackus w as notent i t l ed t o the r etur n of thes e funds and di r ect ed they be tr ans ferr ed t o t he C D O C fordi s pos i t i on pur s uantt o C ol o. R ev. St at . § 16- 18. 5- 106, a r es t i tut i on s t atut e. A ccor di ngl y , a R out tC ountyC ol or ado A s s i s t ant 1 D istric t A tto rn e yn o tifie d th e C D O C o f th e f u n d s a n d a ss e rte d th a t th e sta te di s t r i ctcourtw ant ed the C D O C t o col l ect100% of the funds forpaym entt ow ar dsE xecut i ve D i r ect i ve 26- 04 amended C D O C A dm i ni s tr at i ve R egul at i on 2 2 0 0 -1 5 , sta tin g th a t “[ a ]t lea st 2 0 % o f a ll d e p o sits in to a n in m a te’ s b a n k a c c o u n t .

. . wi l l b e d e d u c t e d a n d p a i d t o wa r d a n yo u t s t a n d i n g b a l a n c e . . . r e s u l t i n g f r o m a cr i m i nal cas e [a nd t hat ] [t ] he 20% w i thhol di ng amount i s t he mi ni m um w i t hhol di ng r equi r ed bys t at e l aw . ” 3 B a c k u s ’ c ri m in a l ju d g m e n t. Seeki ng t o cl ar i fyt he ext entof i t s author i tyunder§ 16- 18. 5- 106, the C D O C t hen i s s ued Execut i ve D i r ect i ve 26- 04, s t at i ng thatthe C D O C “mayor der a m o u n ts g re a ter th a n th e m in im u m tw e n typ e rc e n t (u p to o n e -h u n d re d p e rc e n t) w i t hhol di ng fr om anyi nm at e’ s depos i tt o be appl i ed t ow ar d anyout s t andi ng or der fr om a cr i m i nal cas e or for chi l d s uppor t . ” Fol l ow i ng E xecut i ve D i r ect i ve 26- 04, 2 th e C D O C a p p lie d 1 0 0 % o f th e f u n d s to w a rd s B a c k u s ’ c ri m in a l ju d g m e n t. H ow ever , t he C D O C t hen r eeva l uat ed i t s author i tygr ant ed by§ 16- 18. 5- 106 and c o n c lu d e d th a t it w a s o n ly au th o ri z e d to ta k e u p to 9 9 .9 % o f in c o m in g d e p o s its . T he C D O C t hus appl i ed 99. 9% of the funds t o B ackus ’ cr i m i nal j udgm ent , and ref u n d ed B ac k u s 0 . 1 % ($2 . 6 5 ). B ackus fi l ed a c i vi l r i ght s act i on pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983 agai ns tt he exec ut i ve di r ect orof the C D O C , t he C D O C contr ol l er , and the C D O C di r ect orof admi ni s t r at i on and fi nance ( D efe ndant s ) . B ackus al l eged: ( 1) due pr oces s , equal pr ot ect i on, and ex pos tfac t o vi ol at i ons ; ( 2) t he exi s t ence of a c ons pi r acyamong D efe ndant s t o depr i ve B ackus of hi s ci vi l r i ght s ; and ( 3) s peci fi cal l yas s er t ed that t he C D O C w as onl yperm i t t ed t o r et ai n 20% of the funds i n ques t i on. B ackusB ackus al s o s eeks t o chal l enge the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on that 3 D efe ndant s w er e ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni ty . B eca us e w e fi nd thatt her e w as no cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on, w e nee d notaddr es s t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on r e g a r d i n g q u a l i fi e d i m m u n i t y. 4 s o u g h t m o n e ta ry d a m a g e s , inju n c tiv e , a n d d e c la ra to ry re lie f. B ot h B ackus and D efe ndant s m oved fors um m aryj udgm ent . O n the re c o m m e n d a tio n o f

th e m a g istra te ju d g e , the d istric t co u rt g ra n ted D e fe n d a n ts su m m a ryju d g m e n t, co n c lu d in g th a t D e fe n d a n ts w e re e n tit led to E lev e n th A m e n d m e n t im m u n ityin th e ir o fficia l ca p a c iti e s a n d q u a lifie d im m u n ityin th e ir i ndi vi dual capa ci t i es , and conc l udi ng fur therthatal l of B ackus ’ cl ai m s l acke d m e ri t. II B ac k u s raises the fo ll o w ing issue s o n ap p ea l: (1) w h ethe r th e d istri ct co u rt e rre d in in terp re tin g C o lo . R e v . S tat. § 1 6 -1 8 .5 -1 0 6 , an d (2 ) w h e th e r it er re d in d is m is s in g h is d u e p ro c e s s , e q u a l p ro te c tio n , c o n s p ir a c y , a n d e x p o s t fa c to c la im s . F o r th e fo llo w in g re a so n s, w e c o n c lu d e th e se a rg u m e n ts la c k m e rit. 3 Fi r s t , as r egar ds t he C D O C ’ s i nt erpr et at i o n o f the st atut e, w e not e that C ol or ado r es t i tut i on s t atut es ar e t o be cons trued l i ber al l yt o ens ur e effec t i ve and t i m el yas s es s m ent , col l ect i o n an d di s tr i but i on of r es t i tut i on. C ol o. R ev. St at . §18- 1. 3- 601( 2) . Sect i on 16- 18. 5- 106( 2) s t at es th atthe C D O C “mayfi x the t i m e and m anner o f paym entforcourtor der ed cos t s , s ur char ges , r es t i tut i on, t i m e paym ent fee s , l at e fe es , and any ot her fi nes . . . r es ul t i ng fr om a cr i m i nal cas e ” a nd author i zes5

th e C D O C to “ d ire c t th a t a por t i on of the depos i t s i nt o s uch i nm at e’ s ban k acc ount be appl i ed t o anyout s t andi ng bal ance ” f rom a cr i m i nal cas e. C ol o. R ev. St at . § 16- 1 8 .5 -1 0 6 (2 ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). T h e o n ly lim it o n th e C D O C ’s d isc re tio n is th a t “ [a] t
a m i ni m um , th e e x e c u tiv e d ire c to r sh a ll o rd e r th a t tw e n typ e rc e n t o f a ll d e p o sits in to an i nm at e’ s bank ac count , i ncl u d ing depos i t s fori nm at e pays hal l be deduc t ed and pai d t ow ar d anyout s t andi ng or derfr om a cr i m i nal cas e orforchi l d s uppor t . ” I d. ( emphasi s added) . T he C D O C i nterpret s t hi s s t atut e as author i zi ng i tt o deduct betw een 20% and 99. 9% of i ncomi ng depos i t s i nt o an i nm at e’ s acc ountforpaym ent t ow ar d cour tj udgm ent s fr om a cr i m i nal cas e orforchi ld support . W hi l e w e agr ee w ith B ac k u s tha t th e statute is su bject t o v ary ing interp re ta tio n s, w h ere statu tory lan g u a g e is a m b ig u o u s w e d e fe r to th e in terp re tatio n o f th e a g e n c y c h a rg e d w ith its enfo rcem ent w hen t hat i nterpret at i on i s reas on able. C hev ron U . S . A . , Inc. v . N a t. R es. D ef. C ou ncil , Inc. , 46 7 U . S . 83 7, 84 3 (198 4). G i ven t hat the st atutoryph ras e

“ a ta mi n i mu m” i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e CD OC i s a u th o r i z e d t o d e d u c tmo r e t h a n 2 0 %, we concl ude thatt he C D O C ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the s t atut e i s r eas onabl e. Se c o n d , we c o n c l u d e t h a t Ba c k u s ’ e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n c l a i m l a c k s me r i t . To pr evai l on an equa l pr ot ect i on cl ai m , B ackus mustpr ove thathe w as tr eat ed di ffe r ent l yt han s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed i ndi vi dual s , and thats uch di s par at e tr eatm entw as notr at i onal l yr el at ed t o l egi t i m at e s t at e i nt er es t s . C hr i s t i an H er i t age A ca d em yv. O k laho m a S ec o n d aryS ch o o l A c tiv itie s A ss’n , 4 8 3 F . 3 d 1 0 2 5 , 1 0 3 1 -32 (10 th C ir . 2007) . H er e, t he di s t r i ctcour t di s m i s s ed B ackus ’ equal pr ot ect i on cl ai m beca us e he6

di d not pr ovi de any evi dence t o es t abl i s h that anyotheri nm at es ar e s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed t o hi m . B ackus fai l ed t o pr ovi de evi dence thatotheri nm ates had funds confi s cat ed fr om t hem att he t i m e of thei rarr es t , that the tr i al courti s s ued an or ders t at i ng t hat t heyw ere notenti t l ed to the return of the fu nd s and d i re c ting t he C D O C t o d i spose of t he m oney pur s uant t o s ect i on § 16- 18. 5- 106, and that the C D O C ap p li ed the m o n e yto c rim in a l ju d g m e n ts p u rsu a n t to th a t sta tu te. A d d iti o n a lly , w e se e n o m e rit in B ac k u s’ arg u m en t th at th ere is a fa ctua l dispu te ov er w h e th e r th e d istri ct co u rt i nt ended fort he C D O C t o deduct20% , 99. 9% , or100% of the funds i n ques t i on. T hi rd, w e co n cl ude thatB ackus ’ due pr oces s cl ai m fai l s beca us e he ha s r ece i ved al l t he p roc ess he w as due. T he depr i vat i on ati s s ue her e w as occa s i oned or i gi nal l ybya s ei zur e dur i ng B ackus ’ arr es tand then by a r es t i tut i on or deri m pos ed as a partof hi s cr i m i nal s ent ence i m pos ed aft erhi s convi ct i on. A ft erB ackus s ought re tu rn o f

th e f u n d s a t issu e , a s w e ll as o th e r p ro p e rtyth a t h a d b e e n se ize d , the sta te d istr ic t co u rto rde red b ri efing fro m the S tat e, an d B ac k u s filed a rep ly . T h e c o u rt t hen or der ed the St at e t o i nform the C D O C of the funds held “so that di s pos i t i on of t he s ame m aybe made pur s uantt o C . R . S. 16- 18. 5- 106. ” A ppx. V ol . 1, D oc. 26, E x. A -2 . T h e sta te d istric t c o u rt e n ter e d th is o rd e r a f ter p ro v id in g B a c k u s a n o p p o rtu n ity t o p r e s e n t h i s wr i t t e n a r g u me n t s t o th e c o u r t . Th e p r o c e s s p r o v i d e d her e w as s u ffic ie n t. S e e M a tth e w s v . E ld ri d g e , 4 2 4 U .S . 3 1 9 , 3 3 2 -3 5 (1 9 7 6 ).I n per t i nentpart , C ol o. R ev. St at . § 18- 1. 3- 603( 4) ( b) ( I ) s t at es t hat“[a ] ny 4 or derforr es t i tut i on m ade pur s uantt o thi s s ect i on s hal l al s o be dee m ed t o or der t hat. . . [t ] he defendantow es i nt er es tfr om t he dat e of the entryof the or deratt he ra te o f tw e lv e p e rc e n t p e r a n n u m .” 7 W e al s o r ej ectB ackus ’ cl ai m thatC ol o. R ev. St at . § 18- 1. 3- 603 vi ol at es t he 4 E x P o s t F a c t o Cl a u s e . “ T h e E x P o s t F a c t o Cl a u s e p r o h i b i t s s t a t e s f r o m p a s s i n g l a ws t hatr etr oact i vel yal t ert he def i ni t i on o f crimes ori ncr eas e the puni s hm entfor cr i m i nal act s . ” Bou t wel l v . Kea t i n g , 3 9 9 F. 3 d 1 2 0 3 , 1 2 1 5 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) . A l aw v io late s th e E x P o st F a c to C lau se if th e law (1 ) a p p lies to e v e n ts o c c u rrin g b e fo re it w as enac t ed, and ( 2 ) d isadvant ages the pet i t i onerbychangi ng t he def i ni t i on of c rim in a l c o n d u c t o r i n c re a sin g th e se n ten c e fo r th e c rim in a l co n d u c t. S m ith v . S c o tt, 223 F . 3 d 1 1 9 1, 1194 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . W e have “r ej ect ed the argum ent that the E x P ostF act o C l ause ap pli es t o rest i tuti on , becau se the p urpose of r es t i tut i on i s n o t puni s hm ent . ” U ni t ed St at es v. O verhol t , 307 F. 3d 1231, 1254 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) , see also Peopl e v. L ow e, 60 P. 3d 753, 757 ( C ol o. A pp. 2002) ( concl udi ng t hat“bec ause the [R es t i tut i on] A cts i m pl yfac i l i t at es col l ect i on fr om d e fe n d a n t o f

th e su m s h e w a s o rd e re d to p a ya t th e tim e o f h is s e n ten c in g , it s a p p lica tio n to h im d o e s n o t co n stitu te a n e x p o st fa c to v io la tio n ” ). W e a g re e w ith t he di s t r i ctcourtt hatC ol o. R ev. St at . § 18- 1. 3- 603 does notaffectthe cr i m e for w hi ch B ackus w as i ndi ct ed, t he puni s hm entpr es cr i bed ther efor , orthe quant i t yor degr ee of

pr oof nec es s aryt o es t abl i s h gui l t . I ns t ead, § 18- 1. 3- 603 m er el yes t abl i s hes pr ocedur es t o fac i l i t at e the col l ect i on of r es t i tut i on, cos t s , and otherchar ges t hatT o t he ext entB ackus cl ai m s t hatE xecut i ve D i r ect i ve 26- 04, amendi ng 5 A dm i nis t rat i ve R egu l at i on 20 0-15, vi olat es the E x P ostF act o C l ause or evinces a cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on, t hi s cl ai m al s o fai l s . T hatt he C D O C amended the lan g u a g e o f

its re g u latio n to c lar if yits d isc re tio n d o e s n o t ch a n g e th e fa c t th a t it al r eadyhad di s cr et i on t o w i t hhol d m or e than 20% of an i nm at e’ s depos i tunder t he l anguage of the s t atut e and of i t s i ni t i al r egul at i on. B ac k u s also raises issue s reg ard ing the C o lorad o C o n tr ab an d F o rfe itu re 6 A ct . Som e of thes e ar gum ent s w er e notm eani ngful l yr ai s ed befor e the di s tr i ct cour t , t her efor e, w e dec l i ne t o addr es s t hem, and, i n anyevent , w e fa i l t o s ee the appl i cabi l i t yof thatA ctt o t he fa ct s orcl ai m s r ai s ed her ei n. See H i l l v. K an. G as S e rv . C o ., 3 2 3 F .3 d 8 5 8 , 8 6 5 -6 6 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (d e c lin in g to a d d re ss a rg u m e n ts fo r th e fir st t im e o n ap p ea l) . 8 w er e i m pos ed as a partof B ackus ’ or i gi nal s ent ence . 5 F in a lly , to s u c c e e d o n a c laim fo r c o n sp ira c yto d e p riv e a p lain tiff o f h is cons t i tut i onal r i ght s , B ackus m us t pr ove bot h the exi s t ence of t he conspi r acy and the d e p r i v a t i o n o f

c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t s . Th o mps o n v . Ci tyo f La wr e n c e , 5 8 F. 3 d 1 5 1 1, 15 17 (10t h C i r. 19 95 ). A gain, w e agree w i th the di stri ctcou rt th a t th i s cl ai m fai l s. H ere, t he record i s void of ev i den ce that D efen dan t s conspir ed to vi olat e B acku s’ c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts. In ste a d , the re c o rd d e m o n stra tes o n lya c o n c e rte d e ffo rt to a p p l yBa c k u s ’ f

u n d s t o t h e p a yme n to f th e c r i mi na l j ud gmen te n t e r e d a g a i n s th i m. 6 Ac c o r d i n g l y , t h e j u d g me n to f t h e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED .

E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M aryB eck Bri s coe C i r cui tJ udge