Court Opinion

ID: 9576124
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:21:08.057884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:59:07.476578
License: Public Domain

HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Today the Court finds a new property right for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983: an inmate’s right to “security” in his prison account. As the following colloquy at oral argument makes plain, this Court becomes the first in the Nation to find such a right:
JUDGE SMITH: [CJutting to the chase, do you have ... any authority from this Court or any other Court of Appeals or any other court of record ... recognizing the right to security that is one of the types of property interests that ... your arguments suggests] are entitled to protection?
MR. BOERGER: Not a specific reference to the right of security. This is a matter of first impression in this Court.
*292JUDGE SMITH: So it is ... really a creature of academic discussion, not a recognized property interest heretofore by any court?
MR. BOERGER: Yes.
That no court has previously recognized an inmate’s right to security in his prison account does not preclude us from doing so today. But the absolute lack of precedent in support of such a proposition suggests that we should tread cautiously, and I find no warrant on the facts presented here to establish a new property right. Accordingly, I must respectfully dissent.
I.
I begin with several points of agreement with the Majority’s scholarly opinion. First, the Majority correctly rejects the Department of Correction’s (DOC) mootness argument. Second, the Majority has properly framed the question, ie.: whether Burns has shown that he was deprived of a property right recognized by Pennsylvania law without due process. See Ky. Dep’t of Corr. v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460, 109 S.Ct. 1904, 104 L.Ed.2d 506 (1989). I also agree with the Majority that Burns does not allege a deprivation of liberty despite the fact that he was ordered to serve 180 days in disciplinary custody as a result of his administrative conviction. Finally, the Majority properly notes that Burns does not allege a seizure of the funds in his account; in fact, no seizure occurred.
Despite these points of agreement with the Majority, the DOC’s mere “assessment” — which has neither been reduced to a liquidated sum nor finally adjudicated— does not implicate a property right recognized under Pennsylvania law.
II.
Burns does not challenge the DOC’s decision to place him in disciplinary custody for 180 days. This restriction on Burns’s liberty is plainly more significant than the “cloud” over his prison account, but Burns’s strategy to allege a deprivation of property rather than liberty is understandable in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 486, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995).
In Sandin, an inmate serving a 30-year sentence was subjected to an invasive strip search by a prison officer. Id. at 474-75, 115 S.Ct. 2293. After responding with “angry and foul language,” the inmate was charged with disciplinary infractions and brought before an adjustment committee. Id. at 475, 115 S.Ct. 2293. Without permitting the inmate to present witnesses in his defense, the adjustment committee found him guilty of the alleged misconduct and sentenced him to “30 days’ disciplinary segregation in the Special Holding Unit.” Id. at 475-76, 115 S.Ct. 2293. The inmate sued various prison officials, claiming that they deprived him of his liberty without due process of law. Id. at 476, 115 S.Ct. 2293.
The Supreme Court held that the inmate suffered no deprivation actionable under the Fourteenth Amendment because his disciplinary segregation “did not present the type of atypical, significant deprivation in which a State might conceivably create a liberty interest.” Id. at 486, 115 S.Ct. 2293. Our Court followed this approach in Torres v. Fauver, where we held that an inmate who “was placed in disciplinary detention for 15 days and administrative segregation for 120 days” was not “deprived of a protected liberty interest.” 292 F.3d 141, 151-52 (3d Cir.2002); see also Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 531—32 (3d Cir.2003); Fraise v. Terhune, 283 *293F.3d 506, 522-23 (3d Cir.2002); Shoots v. Horn, 213 F.3d 140, 143-44 (3d Cir.2000); Asquith v. Dep’t of Corr., 186 F.3d 407, 411-12 (3d Cir.1999); Griffin v. Vaughn, 112 F.3d 703, 706 (3d Cir.1997). Although Sandin and its progeny do not control this case, our definition of Burns’s property interest should be consistent with their teachings.
Sandin was animated by the Supreme Court’s desire to limit the ability of inmates to derive constitutionally protected rights from “prison regulations primarily designed to guide correctional officials in the administration of a prison.” Sandin, 515 U.S. at 481-82, 115 S.Ct. 2293. In one pre-Sandin case, for example, an inmate claimed that pursuant to a prison regulation meant to protect prison officials, he was summarily labeled “incorrigible” and deprived of his liberty interest in receiving a tray lunch rather than a sack lunch. Burgin v. Nix, 899 F.2d 733, 734 (8th Cir.1990); see also Sandin, 515 U.S. at 482-83, 115 S.Ct. 2293 (collecting cases). Responding to such claims, the Supreme Court sought to “afford appropriate deference and flexibility to state officials trying to manage a volatile environment” and thereby limit “the involvement of federal courts in the day-to-day management of prisons.” Sandin, 515 U.S. at 482, 115 S.Ct. 2293. The Court was also concerned that permitting litigants to derive constitutional rights from prison regulations ultimately harmed inmates by creating “disincentives for States to codify prison management procedures.” Id. To address these concerns, the Court limited the scope of inmates’ liberty interests to situations where the state “imposes atypical and significant hardship ... in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Id. at 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293.
In light of the substantial narrowing of the inmate’s liberty interest in Sandin, the Majority’s decision to broaden the scope of inmates’ property interests beyond bounds heretofore recognized by any court of record strikes me as anomalous and unwise. By expanding the scope of property rights to include a right to “security” in a prison account, the Majority elevates the potential future threat of execution on a prison account over the actual detriment of spending a significant amount of time in disciplinary custody.
Moreover, although I accept the Majority’s application of the Hohfeldian “bundle of rights theory of property” in certain contexts, I disagree that it is an appropriate tool for defining the property interests at issue here.9 As discussed by Honoré, the “bundle of rights” includes eleven incidents of property ownership: “the right to possess, the right to use, the right to manage, the right to the income of the thing, the right to the capital ... the rights or incidents of transmissibility and absence of term, the prohibition of harmful use, liability to execution, and the incident of resid-uarity.” See Maj. Op. at IV. The Majority’s holding suggests that the impairment of any one of these incidents constitutes a deprivation of property sufficient to trigger the procedural protections of the Fourteenth Amendment. This approach is problematic for two reasons.
First, it permits inmates to circumvent the Supreme Court’s holding that disciplinary segregation does not automatically *294trigger the procedural protections of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Sandin, 515 U.S. at 486, 115 S.Ct. 2293. A DOC regulation prohibits inmates from enjoying the privilege of personal property. See DC-ADM 801 § 6(A)(3) (June 13, 2008). Under the Majority’s Hohfeldian theory, this regulation automatically deprives inmates sentenced to disciplinary custody of personal property by impairing their “right to possess” the same during their confinement. By virtue of this deprivation, inmates will always be entitled to due process in conjunction with their placement in disciplinary custody, a result directly contrary to Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484-86, 115 S.Ct. 2293.
Second, the Majority’s approach renders unconstitutional a host of innocuous DOC regulations that limit, without due process, inmates’ rights to “use” and “transmit” the funds in their prison accounts. Although by no means an exhaustive list, the following regulations illustrate the can of worms that I fear is opened by today’s decision.
One policy limits an inmate’s ability to use prison account funds for “outside purchases.” DC-ADM 815 § 2(B) (May 12, 2008). Specifically, an inmate is “limited to one [outside] order per month” and must submit a written purchase request for review “by a designated facility official, who will approve or disapprove” it pending “[f]inal approval ... made upon inspection when the item is received.” Id. Section 2(A)(3)(d) limits the over-the-counter medications that an inmate is entitled to purchase to those “reviewfed] and approve[d]” by the “Bureau of Health Care Services.” Id. Section 2(A)(7) tasks the “Property Office” with tracking “the number of shoes and sneakers that are delivered to the inmate, for compliance with the purchasing limitations on these products.” The foregoing restrictions involve a more direct and substantial impairment of an inmate’s property rights than the “right to security,” and unlike any impairment suffered by Burns, none of these policies affords an inmate an opportunity to contest the relevant official’s decision.
Because these policies impair inmates’ rights to “use” and “transmit” funds in their prison accounts — impairments the Majority suggests are deprivations of property — inmates would be entitled to due process with respect to every outside purchase, every bottle of aspirin, and every pair of sneakers. This result is antithetical to the Supreme Court’s decision in Sandin, which recognized that the “incidents of prison life” involve limitations on the panoply of rights enjoyed by ordinary citizens. 515 U.S. at 485, 115 S.Ct. 2293 (citing Jones v. N.C. Prisoners’ Labor Union, Inc., 433 U.S. 119, 125, 97 S.Ct. 2532, 53 L.Ed.2d 629 (1977)) (“Lawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system.”); Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499, 510, 125 S.Ct. 1141, 160 L.Ed.2d 949 (2005) (“[Cjertain privileges and rights must necessarily be limited in the prison context.”).
Furthermore, the Majority’s holding frustrates the Supreme Court’s attempt to insulate prison regulations “primarily designed to guide correctional officials in the administration of a prison” from constitutional scrutiny and to “afford appropriate deference and flexibility to state officials trying to manage a volatile environment.” Sandin, 515 U.S. at 481-82, 115 S.Ct. 2293. Like the regulation that deprived “incorrigible” inmates of potentially-hazardous tray lunches in Burgin, 899 F.2d at 734, the purchasing policies described above are surely not “atypical” or “significant” in relation to “the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293. Accordingly, such regulations *295should not be interpreted to confer heretofore unrecognized rights upon inmates, but such an interpretation is unavoidable given the Majority’s decision today.
In light of the foregoing, I would reject the Majority’s conclusion that by clouding his prison account with the “threat of expropriation,” the DOC deprived Burns of property. Maj. Op. at IV. This threat to the “security” of his account — which, it should be emphasized, remains to this day an account that Burns is free to access and deplete — is simply not an “atypical and significant hardship ... in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293.
III.
This is not to say that inmates have no “property interest in funds held in prison accounts,” or that they are not entitled to “due process with respect to any deprivation of money” from their accounts. Maj. Op. at IV (citations omitted). I simply contend that Burns’s property interest is not so broad and amorphous as the Majority suggests. Given the more limited nature of inmates’ property rights vis-a-vis ordinary citizens, see Part II, supra, I would hold, as this Court has previously suggested, that an inmate suffers a deprivation of property “at the moment” the prison “employees seize[] the money in [the] inmate account.” Higgins v. Beyer, 293 F.3d 683, 694 n. 3 (3d Cir.2002). This sensible rule comports with a Supreme Court case not mentioned by the Majority.
In American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company v. Sullivan, a class of employees sued Pennsylvania state officials, claiming that Pennsylvania’s Workers’ Compensation Act deprived them of property without due process. 526 U.S. at 40, 48, 119 S.Ct. 977, 143 L.Ed.2d 130 (1999). The Act permitted insurance companies to withhold reimbursements for medical treatment from workers who suffered job-related injuries until private “utilization review organizations” determined that the treatment was “reasonable or necessary for the medical condition of the employee.” Id. at 46-48, 119 S.Ct. 977 (internal citations omitted). Rejecting the employees’ claim that they were entitled to the benefits as soon as the employers’ liability was established, the Supreme Court held that the employees “do not have a property interest” in the benefits until they “establish that the particular medical treatment ... [was] reasonable and necessary.” Id. at 61, 119 S.Ct. 977.
As in Sullivan, Burns’s liability for the assault had been established, but the DOC had not attempted to quantify the amount of his liability, which is a prerequisite to deducting money from his account. App’x 33-35. Furthermore, as Burns’s counsel admitted at oral argument, the funds in Burns’s account remained freely alienable at all relevant times. See also App’x 35 (indicating that funds in an inmate’s account remain freely alienable until “receipt of a decision imposing an assessment against the inmate” by the Business Manager). In addition, before the DOC could execute its assessment, Burns was entitled to additional process, including: (1) a “Holloway hearing” to determine “the amount of financial loss or costs, if any,”10 and (2) an appeal from this determination. App’x 33-35 (emphasis added); see Holloway v. Lehman, 671 A.2d 1179, 1180-82 (Pa.Commw.Ct.1996). Thus, the DOC cannot deprive Burns of funds in his prison *296account until it establishes “the amount of financial loss or cost, if any.” Because it is undisputed that the DOC never established (or even attempted to establish) this amount, I would hold that Burns has not suffered a deprivation of property.
For the same reason, I would reject Burns’s argument that the DOC acquired a property interest in his account as a “judgment creditor” that diminished the economic value of his property. Maj. Op. at IV. As the Majority recognizes, a creditor cannot execute on a money judgment until it is reduced to a liquidated sum. See id. Here, it is undisputed that the DOC never established Burns’s financial liability, if any. The Majority dismisses this distinction as “beside the point” because the DOC possessed “unilateral authority to reduce their assessment to a specific dollar amount” and to “deduct any assessed fees without resort to an intermediary.” Id. (emphasis added). Much like a judgment debtor in state court, however, Burns is entitled to notice, a hearing, and an appeal before his account can be debited.11 See Holloway, 671 A.2d at 1180-82; App’x 33-35. If the DOC decides to pursue this course of action, Burns will then be entitled to his day in court. As the District Court stated:
Should Defendants or other [Department of Corrections] officials seize any funds from [Burns’s] inmate account for the payment of medical or other expenses resulting from Mobley’s assault, this Court would grant [Burns] leave to re-file his due process challenges to his disciplinary process.
Burns v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., Civ. No. 05-3462, 2007 WL 442385, at *4 n. 2 (E.D.Pa. Feb.6, 2007).
IV.
In the absence of any authority, the Majority turns to scholarly writings to hold that an inmate has a property right in the “security” of his prison account. I cannot abide the Majority’s elevation of an inmate’s property rights over his liberty rights as delineated by the Supreme Court in Sandin. Likewise, if the property rights inside the prison walls are coextensive with Honoré’s “incidents of property,” several regulations promulgated by the Department of Corrections to regulate the daily lives of inmates are constitutionally suspect. In addition to these concerns on the merits, I fear that today’s decision will spawn a new generation of unwarranted due process challenges akin to those that laid the foundation for Sandin. Accordingly, I must respectfully dissent.

. I note that the Majority cites only takings cases for the proposition that the “bundle of rights theory of property” has been embraced by the Supreme Court and the Third Circuit despite its observation that “what constitutes the impairment of a protected property interest for purposes of due process ... is a distinct inquiry from determining what constitutes a taking.” Maj. Op. at IV.

. Burns argues that once his disciplinary conviction become final, deduction of medical expenses from this account “was required by operation of law.” To the contrary, the "if any” language in the regulations suggests that the Holloway hearing could result in the assessment of no damages.

. Ironically, the rule established by the Majority confers more process upon an inmate than a private citizen. Under Pennsylvania law, a judgment creditor may confess judgment and begin executing on the judgment debtor’s assets unless and until the judgment debtor files a petition to open or strike the confessed judgment. See Pa. R.C.P. 2956.1.