Opinion ID: 1126389
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Whether forfeiture of earned time is unconstitutional where such forfeiture is carried out without additional instructions or approval of the court and where it is arguably taken by appellee as retribution against the indigent inmate for seeking judicial intervention against appellee and his agents for alleged mistreatment, misconduct, illegal actions, or because the indigent inmate challenged MDOC agency policy?

Text: ¶ 20. Tubwell next raises an objection to the manner in which the trial court processed the orders revoking his earned time credits. Specifically, Tubwell argues that the forfeiture of Appellant's earned time was carried out by MDOC without any prior written instructions from the court concerning whether to forfeit Appellant's earned time. Tubwell argues that the MDOC only learned of the dismissals based on its status as a party to the litigation and Tubwell suggests that this fact, if true, somehow renders the forfeiture of earned time invalid. ¶ 21. Tubwell's argument is lacking in both supporting evidence in the record and in any citation to legal authority. As discussed infra, the record reveals that the circuit judge did in fact issue final orders dismissing various actions filed by Tubwell as frivolous. It is both unclear and, in the view of this Court, irrelevant whether the MDOC learned of these dismissals through its status as a party to the lawsuits or through being forwarded a copy of the dismissals by the clerk. The fact remains that the lawsuits were in fact dismissed as frivolous through the issuance of final orders, thus implicating the provisions of § 47-5-138. This argument is without merit.