Opinion ID: 8870
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claims Based on Work as a Trusty

Text: 9
10 Brooks alleged that his choice between staying in jail or working when he was not supposed to be in jail amounted to involuntary servitude. We begin by asking whether the record contained substantial evidence to create a jury question on involuntary servitude. Boeing v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 375 (5th Cir.1969). 11 The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution provides that [n]either slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the states or in any place subject to their jurisdiction. U.S. Const. amend. XIII, § 1. The Fifth Circuit defines involuntary servitude as an action by the master causing the servant to have, or to believe he has, no way to avoid continued service or confinement. Watson v. Graves, 909 F.2d 1549, 1552 (5th Cir.1990). When the employee has a choice, even though it is a painful one, there is no involuntary servitude ... A showing of compulsion is thus a prerequisite to proof of involuntary servitude. Id. 12 In Watson, this Circuit held that two inmates who requested to work outside of jail made such a choice voluntarily and presented no Thirteenth Amendment claim. Id. at 1552-1553. The prison context made this choice no less voluntary. Examining the record, we find Brooks's situation to be similar to that of the inmates in Watson. 13 The county held Brooks as a pretrial detainee. In that status, Brooks was entitled only to be confined until trial; the Appellants were under no obligation to allow Brooks the freedom he enjoyed. Brooks made the request for trusty status. He desired to leave the jail and chose to work as the price for that right. Since Brooks was not being punished by being detained until trial, the choice between this confinement and work as a trusty cannot be considered coercive because the benefits he received for working were not benefits for which he was otherwise entitled. Admittedly, the choice described might have been a painful one, but it was nonetheless a choice. 14 The district court granted Appellants partial summary judgment on Brooks's claims relating to unlawful incarceration, absolving Appellants of legal liability. To find the Appellants liable for involuntary servitude based on a nolle prosequi order which provides no basis for liability under unlawful incarceration would defy common sense. Like the inmates in Watson, Brooks had a choice, albeit a painful one. He was, however, not subject to involuntary servitude and thus presented no claim under the Thirteenth Amendment. 3 15
16 Brooks claimed that Appellants' failure to compensate him for any of his work on public property, and their failure to compensate him for part of his work on private property, constituted a deprivation of property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 4 The jury found Sheriff Howell and Deputy Miller liable for the deprivations in their individual capacities; because the jury found the deprivations to be part of a policy or custom, Sheriff Howell and Deputy Miller were also liable in their official capacities. 5 17 Appellants raise a number of defenses. They contend that Brooks has not alleged the deprivation of a cognizable property right, that qualified immunity shields Sheriff Howell and Deputy Miller from liability in their individual capacities and that no custom was present to give rise to official liability under Monell. Appellants also maintain that post-deprivation remedies are adequate process for Brooks because whatever deprivation that allegedly occurred was merely a random and unauthorized act under the Parratt/ Hudson doctrine. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the judgment holding Sheriff Howell liable in his individual and official capacities on this due process claim relating to Brooks's work on public property, and reverse that portion of the judgment relating to Brooks's work on private property. We remand to the district court for further proceedings, including a retrial, if necessary, to determine the actual damages, and punitive damages, if any, arising from Sheriff Howell's liability on this claim. We also reverse the judgment against Deputy Miller in his individual and official capacities on this claim relating to Brooks's work on both public and private property. 18
19 Since the United States Constitution does not create property rights, Brooks must be able to rely on Mississippi law to prove that he has a cognizable property right in wages for work performed as a pretrial detainee. Garcia v. Reeves County, Texas, 32 F.3d 200, 203 (5th Cir.1994). Where there is a legitimate expectation of entitlement, there is a property right. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). 20 Brooks contended below that Miss.Code Ann. §§ 47-1-13 and 47-1-21 (1972) created a property right in wages for work on public and private property as a pretrial detainee. Miss.Code Ann. § 47-1-13 states in relevant part that 21 Any person being held in the county jail in default of bail to await trial ... may on application to the sheriff of the county, be allowed to work on ... county public works as other convicts are worked and at the same wage. The board of supervisors shall settle with prisoners so working at their regular meetings monthly. 22 (emphasis added). Miss.Code Ann. § 47-1-21 requires that 23 [t]he sheriff of each county shall keep a well bound alphabetical jail docket. In it he shall promptly enter under the proper initial the name, age, color and sex of each convict, the date of his or her commitment, each day worked on the county farm.... 24 The sheriff shall submit his docket to the board of supervisors at each of their regular meetings, and the same shall be examined carefully by the president of the board, and by any other members who desire to examine the same, in the presence of the board while in session. 25 The statutes cited by Brooks do not create a legitimate expectation of entitlement to compensation for work on private property by pretrial detainees. These statutes do not provide for payments for work on private property. In fact, under Mississippi law, prisoners may only do work of an exclusively public character. See Miss.Code Ann. §§ 47-1-19, 47-1-3. We therefore find that Brooks's failure to receive compensation for his work on private property over and above the compensation he actually received does not constitute a deprivation of a cognizable property right. 26 The two provisions quoted above, in our estimation, do create a legitimate expectation of entitlement to compensation for work on public property by pretrial detainees. These two statutes provide that a pretrial detainee who is permitted to work on public property must be paid the same wages as other prisoners. They place on the sheriff the duty to keep a record of days worked and to submit that information to the county board of supervisors so that the board can settle with the pretrial detainees at its regular meetings. Our conclusion that these statutes create a cognizable property right in wages is buttressed by the fact that the state has provided a mechanism whereby claims against the county can be presented directly to the board of supervisors or in state court. 6 Because Mississippi law creates a cognizable property right in wages for a pretrial detainee's work on public property, Brooks cannot be deprived of that right without due process of law. See Piatt v. MacDougall, 773 F.2d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir.1985) (en banc) (Because Arizona has established, by statute, a right of inmates to compensation for work performed for private parties, it cannot deny [the inmate] that right after he has earned the wages, without affording him due process of the law.) 27 Sheriff Howell did not keep a record of the days Brooks worked on public property and failed to present such a record to the board of supervisors at its meetings, precluding the board of supervisors from paying wages to Brooks. Brooks was thus deprived of wages for the work he performed on public property as a direct consequence of Sheriff Howell's failure to act in the face of a clear duty to act under state law. The statutes cited by Brooks, however, do not impose on Deputy Miller a similar duty. Because the record provides no evidence that Deputy Miller's actions or failure to act deprived Brooks of wages for the work he performed on public property, we reverse the judgment holding Deputy Miller liable in his individual or official capacities on this claim. 28
29 We now consider whether Sheriff Howell is qualifiedly immune from liability in his individual capacity. Qualified immunity is only available when an official acts within the scope of [his or her] discretionary authority. Cronen v. Texas Dept. of Human Services, 977 F.2d 934, 939 (5th Cir.1992). Mississippi law, as quoted above, imposes on Sheriff Howell a non-discretionary duty to keep records of work performed by pretrial detainees and to transmit those records to the board of supervisors so that pretrial detainees can be paid. Sheriff Howell thus is not entitled to qualified immunity from individual liability on this due process claim. 30
31 Brooks's suit against Sheriff Howell in his official capacity is treated as a claim against George County. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 23-27, 112 S.Ct. 358, 361-362, 116 L.Ed.2d 301 (1991). To establish liability on the part of George County, Brooks must demonstrate a policy or custom which caused the alleged constitutional deprivation. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 690-92, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2036, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Appellants contend no such policy is present. However, the jury found that the Fourteenth Amendment violations were part of a custom, policy or practice of the county. This finding has sufficient support in law and fact. 32 We note that even a single decision may create municipal liability if that decision were made by a final policymaker responsible for that activity. Brown v. Bryan County, Oklahoma, 67 F.3d 1174, 1183 (5th Cir.1995) (emphasis in original). Sheriffs in Mississippi are final policymakers with respect to all law enforcement decisions made within their counties. Huddleston v. Shirley, 787 F.Supp. 109, 112 (N.D.Miss.1992); Miss.Code Ann. § 19-25-1, et seq. Sheriff Howell admitted on the record that the department kept none of the required records detailing the locations and number of days prisoners worked. The jury could infer from this statement that the county had a policy of not keeping such records. Therefore, George County is liable for the ongoing actions of its policy maker, Sheriff Howell, in depriving Brooks of his property without due process. Turner v. Upton County, 915 F.2d 133, 137 (5th Cir.1990), cert. denied 498 U.S. 1069, 111 S.Ct. 788, 112 L.Ed.2d 850 (1991). 33
34 Appellants urge in their defense that no due process violation has been shown because of the Parratt/ Hudson doctrine. Under their version of this doctrine, the mere presence of post-deprivation remedies prevents a due process claim. 7 Such interpretation is blatantly misleading and is not the law. The Parratt/ Hudson doctrine dictates that a state actor's random and unauthorized deprivation of a plaintiff's property does not result in a violation of procedural due process rights if the state provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. Caine v. Hardy, 943 F.2d 1406, 1412 (5th Cir.1991) (en banc) (discussing Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981) and Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984)). 35 The Parratt/ Hudson doctrine is inapplicable to the facts as shown. The doctrine is meant to protect the state from liability for failing to provide predeprivation process in situations where it cannot anticipate the need for such process (when actions are random and unauthorized). Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 128-32, 110 S.Ct. 975, 984-87, 108 L.Ed.2d 100 (1990). Where a municipal officer operates pursuant to a local custom or procedure, the Parratt/ Hudson doctrine is inapposite: actions in accordance with an official policy under Monell can hardly be labeled random and unauthorized. Wilson v. Civil Town of Clayton, Ind., 839 F.2d 375, 380 (7th Cir.1988). As this Court noted, where employees are acting in accord with customary procedures, the random and unauthorized element required for the application of the Parratt/ Hudson doctrine is simply not met. Alexander v. Ieyoub, 62 F.3d 709, 713 (5th Cir.1995). Despite Appellants' urging, we see no application of the Parratt/ Hudson doctrine to the facts as presented. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment holding Sheriff Howell liable in his individual and official capacities on this Fourteenth Amendment claim relating to Brooks's work on public property. We remand to the district court for further proceedings, including a retrial, if necessary, to determine the actual damages, and punitive damages, if any, arising from Sheriff Howell's liability on this claim. 36