Court Opinion

ID: 9493651
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:14:05.947242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:56.859105
License: Public Domain

WIDENER, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
Although I concur in the result reached in Part II of the opinion of the panel, and all of the balance of the opinion without reservation, I write separately to indicate my opinion that there is no discretion regarding the exercise of jurisdiction to hear this case.
Ripeness, like other justiciability doctrines, is rooted in the case or controversy requirement of Article III. See U.S. Const. Art. Ill, § 2. Ripeness doctrine addresses whether a dispute has matured to a point that warrants decision because an actual, concrete injury has occurred. See 13A Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction 2d, § 3532, at 112 (Supp. 2000). In my opinion, there is no question but that the dispute addressed in this decision is ripe.
In Williamson County Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, the Court held that a regulatory takings claim under the Fifth Amendment is premature until the state has failed to provide adequate compensation. See 473 U.S. 172, 186, 194-95, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985). In this regard, the Court stated, “[A] claim that the application of government regulations effects a taking of a property interest is not ripe until the government entity charged with implementing the regulations has reached a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue.” Williamson County, 473 U.S. at 186, 105 S.Ct. 3108 (emphasis added).
In this case, Washlefske claims he is injured by the ongoing application of a Virginia law that contravenes a right to interest earned on his prison account. The statute’s terms make it clear that interest does not necessarily accrue to the prisoners’ accounts, thus satisfying the final decision requirement in Williamson County. See Va.Code Ann. § 53.1-44 (2000) (“Any income or increment of increase received from the bonds or investments may be used by the Director for the benefit of the prisoners under his care.”). No additional state proceedings are necessary to establish that prisoners are not, in fact, entitled to any amount of interest on their prison accounts. And the fact that the State has taken the interest leaves no remaining question as to how the statute is applied. See Suitum v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 520 U.S. 725, 739, 117 S.Ct. 1659, 137 L.Ed.2d 980 (1997) (holding that demand for finality was satisfied because there were no remaining questions about how the regulations at issue applied). Because the Virginia statute is clear that *187prisoners are not entitled to interest earned on their prison accounts, and any such interest has been disposed of by the State, I think jurisdiction to hear the case attached, and its exercise was not discretionary. Cf. Phillips v. Washington Legal Found., 524 U.S. 156, 160-63, 118 S.Ct. 1925, 141 L.Ed.2d 174 (1998) (exercising jurisdiction over takings claim with similar procedural history and similar factual background without discussing Williamson County ripeness inquiry).