Alabama Department of Corrections et al. v. Jerry Mack Merritt et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/15/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2081084 Alabama Department o f C o r r e c t i o n s e t a l . v. J e r r y Mack M e r r i t t e t a l . J e r r y Mack M e r r i t t e t a l . v. Alabama Department o f C o r r e c t i o n s e t a l . Appeals from Montgomery C i r c u i t Court (CV-07-143, CV-07-1194, CV-08-1640, and CV-08-416) On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g PER CURIAM. 2081084 The opinion o f June 18, 2010, i s w i t h d r a w n , and t h e following i s substituted therefor. The A l a b a m a D e p a r t m e n t o f C o r r e c t i o n s ( " t h e d e p a r t m e n t " ) ; R i c h a r d A l l e n , commissioner o f the Department o f C o r r e c t i o n s ; G o v e r n o r Bob R i l e y ; Mr. C a r t e r , R e l e a s e C e n t e r ; a n d Mr. R e y n o l d s , Release Center (hereinafter d i r e c t o r o f t h e M o b i l e Work 1 2 d i r e c t o r of the Loxley referred to "DOC"), a p p e a l f r o m t h e j u d g m e n t d e t e r m i n i n g the department's regulations by collectively Work as t h a t DOC v i o l a t e d overcharging work-release inmates f o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c o s t s and by m i s i n t e r p r e t i n g S t a t e law b y w i t h h o l d i n g more money f r o m t h e g r o s s p a y o f i n m a t e s ' w o r k - r e l e a s e e a r n i n g s t h a n i t was a u t h o r i z e d t o do u n d e r S t a t e law. J e r r y Mack M e r r i t t , Thomas L a y t o n , J o h n n y W a l k e r , W a r r e n R. R o b i n s o n , and D a r r e l l W i l l i a m s c o l l e c t i v e l y as " t h e p l a i n t i f f s " ) , in Mr. appeal. 1 Carter's full referred to inmates or former inmates from the t r i a l court's judgment name d o e s n o t a p p e a r i n t h e r e c o r d on Mr. R e y n o l d s ' s f u l l appeal. 2 name d o e s n o t a p p e a r i n t h e r e c o r d T h e p l a i n t i f f s f i l e d f o u r l a w s u i t s t h a t were trial. 3 for (hereinafter t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e d e p a r t m e n t who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a w o r k - r e l e a s e program, c r o s s - a p p e a l on 3 2 consolidated 2081084 determining inmates t h a t DOC for was certain inmates a fee authorized goods or to charge services for s e l f - i n i t i a t e d and medical work-release to care charge a l l and a fee drug t e s t i n g c o n d u c t e d by e n t i t i e s o t h e r than the The record authorized to i n d i c a t e s the operate a following. work-release The department. department i s program for inmates. Pursuant t o t h a t program, inmates are p e r m i t t e d " t o leave confines [of their places for of i n c a r c e r a t i o n ] unaccompanied the by a c u s t o d i a l agent f o r a p r e s c r i b e d p e r i o d of time t o work a t p a i d employment." inmates are hours confined they qualified Since are to whether to § 14-8-2(a), not take in their at part in Before earnings § 14-8-2(a). the program I n m a t e s who have the option the are of participate. 1992, § 14-8-6, A l a . Code 1975, for costs 1992, the § 14-8-6 p r o v i d e d department has authorized t o 40% o f an i n m a t e ' s "incident to inmate's work-release The Work-release respective prisons during work. d e p a r t m e n t t o w i t h h o l d up earnings A l a . Code 1975. was the that inmate's the allowed earnings was r e c o r d i n c l u d e s a c o p y o f Admin. Reg. 3 work-release confinement." maximum amount of withhold an to 32.5% the of those No. 410, from earnings. promulgated 2081084 by the department, which, i n § VII.B., provides that, "[a]s a u t h o r i z e d by s t a t u t e , t h i r t y - t w o and o n e - h a l f p e r c e n t (32 ^%) of by the Department of C o r r e c t i o n s t o a s s i s t i n d e f r a y i n g the cost of his/her Richard work Allen, releasees' gross earnings incarceration." the (Emphasis commissioner deposition that, after of § d e p a r t m e n t t o w i t h h o l d up earnings, will the in deducted original.) department, 14-8-6 was t o 40% be testified amended to o f an i n m a t e ' s t h e d e p a r t m e n t ' s p o l i c y was allow though formally Admin. amended. Reg. No. However, r a t i f i e d by t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r . submitted into handwritten 14-8-6." 4 deposited evidence 410, t o w i t h h o l d up that The i s dated notation at § VII.B. The § VII.B., unwritten had policy c o p y o f Admin. Reg. 1997, and the work-release r a t h e r t h a n up t o 32.5%, o f an i n m a t e ' s w o r k - r e l e a s e even by to 40%, earnings not been has been No. i t includes s t a t i n g : "Changed t o 40%, balance of a work-release into his prison inmate's earnings 410 a see is account. A l l e n t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had no e x p l a n a t i o n as t o why t h e o r i g i n a l 1997 v e r s i o n o f t h e r e g u l a t i o n s t i l l r e f e r r e d t o a maximum w i t h h o l d i n g o f 32.5% when t h e s t a t u t e had b e e n amended f i v e y e a r s e a r l i e r t o a l l o w a maximum w i t h h o l d i n g o f 40%. 4 4 2081084 Administrative department release their to R e g u l a t i o n No. charge inmates also a u t h o r i z e s the participating i n the program f o r the c o s t of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p l a c e s o f employment. 410, 410 § V I I I . B . , inmates Pursuant 5 work- t o and from t o Admin. Reg. No. u s i n g t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p r o v i d e d by t h e d e p a r t m e n t t o and f r o m t h e i r w o r k - r e l e a s e j o b s may be a s s e s s e d $2 f o r a one-way t r i p and $4 f o r a r o u n d t r i p . At the time of trial, transportation however, inmates were being c o s t s o f $2.50 f o r a one-way t r i p The department also charged and $5 f o r a r o u n d charges work-release trip. inmates a l a u n d r y f e e f o r c l e a n i n g t h e " f r e e - w o r l d " c l o t h e s t h e y wear t o their work-release jobs. There i s no services for prison-issued clothing. Merritt, complained He also f o r laundry One o f t h e p l a i n t i f f s , o f h a v i n g t o p a y $16 a month f o r l a u n d r y s e r v i c e s w h i l e he was centers. charge a t t h e L o x l e y and M o b i l e complained about having work-release t o use a coin- operated laundry while at the Mobile work-release center a f t e r A l l e n t e s t i f i e d t h a t i n m a t e s may c h o o s e t o t a k e p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n t o t h e i r p l a c e s o f employment, i n w h i c h c a s e the inmates a r e t o pay the t o t a l c o s t o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . However, some o f t h e p l a i n t i f f s t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y were n o t given the option of t a k i n g p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n t o t h e i r p l a c e s o f employment. 5 5 2081084 S e p t e m b e r 2005, b e c a u s e , he s a i d , "minimum c u s t o d y l a u n d r y was free." Merritt and Walker also testified that they had to p u r c h a s e t h e i r own t o i l e t r i e s w h i l e p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e workr e l e a s e program. the Those p u r c h a s e s must be made i n a d d i t i o n t o money t h e d e p a r t m e n t w i t h h o l d s from w o r k - r e l e a s e inmates' earnings t o d e f r a y the c o s t s of the inmates' confinement. The plaintiffs in testified p r i s o n s , as o p p o s e d that, they were incarcerated to work-release centers, t o i l e t r i e s p r o v i d e d t o them a t no The when department were charge. has promulgated a number of other r e g u l a t i o n s a u t h o r i z i n g c e r t a i n charges at i s s u e i n t h i s case. P u r s u a n t t o Admin. Reg. No. to c h a r g e an i n m a t e a $3 c o - p a y visits. If physician referral, the inmate specifies the i s not that visit co-pay. charged under Allen is i s authorized for "self-initiated" initiated by medical the warden, or a n o t h e r p r i s o n no denied access to h e a l t h the 601, t h e d e p a r t m e n t the co-pay. The 6 an a official, also inmate o f an i n a b i l i t y s a i d t h a t the purpose d i s c o u r a g e m a l i n g e r i n g among i n m a t e s . staff, regulation circumstances would care because medical of the co-pay to be pay i s to 2081084 P u r s u a n t t o Admin. Reg. No. 440, § V . F . 3 . , t h e d e p a r t m e n t is authorized test t o c h a r g e an i n m a t e t h e c o s t performed by an independent positive test for i l l e g a l c o s t was $31.50. negative the laboratory drug to confirm A t the time of t r i a l , a that I f t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e i n d e p e n d e n t t e s t were for illegal fee. drugs. of a urine substances, t h e i n m a t e was n o t c h a r g e d Admin. Reg. No. 440, § V.E.5. After a approving hearing, the t r i a l court the p r a c t i c e of charging co-pay f o r " s e l f - i n i t i a t e d " medical testing administered charged to confirm to a work-release inmates fee entered inmates the care, approving when the r e s u l t s a judgment drug of a previous the drugtest drug is test i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e i n m a t e h a s t e s t e d p o s i t i v e f o r u s e o f an illegal On substance, the other and a p p r o v i n g hand, the laundry fee. the t r i a l court found that the d e p a r t m e n t h a d f a i l e d t o amend i t s r e g u l a t i o n s , as r e q u i r e d b y the regulations "informal" Therefore, authority themselves, amendment the trial to withhold inmate's earnings of and the that the regulations court held, more than DOC department's was d i d not 32.5% o f a invalid. have the work-release t o defray the costs of i n c a r c e r a t i o n or t o 7 2081084 i n c r e a s e the c h a r g e s an i n m a t e p a y s f o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c o s t s f r o m $2 t o $2.50 f o r one-way t r i p s and trips to the e n j o i n e d DOC inmate's p l a c e f r o m $4 t o $5 f o r r o u n d o f employment. The trial f r o m w i t h h o l d i n g 40% o f an i n m a t e ' s court work-release e a r n i n g s o r f r o m c h a r g i n g i n m a t e s more f o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n t h a n the amount stipulated in Admin. Reg. No. 410, § VII.B. However, t h e t r i a l c o u r t s t a y e d i t s i n j u n c t i o n f o r 180 d a y s t o a l l o w the department to f o r m a l l y amended i t s r e g u l a t i o n s to b r i n g them i n l i n e w i t h c u r r e n t p r a c t i c e s . Because the the trial department's court current found t h a t , under the regulations, DOC was to earnings, the c e r t a i n goods and o f an i n m a t e ' s w o r k - r e l e a s e issue by services moot. amending § absolute no stated: e a r n i n g s , was exceeding However, t h e 14-8-6, the shall the court "Once t h e 40 for funds from to "hold" intended could take earnings "to 14-8¬ that, in an from inmates: 'In exceed The 40% of trial t h r e s h o l d i s reached, 8 inmate's place (emphasis added)." percent an t h e 40% cap u n d e r § w e n t on Legislature withheld of the inmates. ' fees withholding cap on t h e m o n i e s [DOC] event earnings charging i n a d d i t i o n to work-release 6 was DOC, of allowed w i t h h o l d o n l y 32.5% whether terms the court [DOC] is 2081084 p r o h i b i t e d by s t a t u t e f r o m t a k i n g any is of for costs other or any t r i a l c o u r t f u r t h e r h e l d t h a t § 14-8-6 a u t h o r i z e d the fee or The confinement, costs more money, w h e t h e r i t o f work r e l e a s e , expense." department to w i t h h o l d a percentage of a work-release earnings "actually e m p l o y e r " and Therefore, not the deposited in the a p e r c e n t a g e o f an trial court inmate's institution by inmate's gross held, the the income. department had m i s i n t e r p r e t e d t h e s t a t u t e when i t p r o m u l g a t e d Admin. Reg. 410, § VII.B., which a l l o w s the department to w i t h h o l d of a work-release The trial inmate's gross court noted that No. 32.5% earnings. the p a r t i e s had agreed to r e s o l v e l i a b i l i t y i s s u e s b e f o r e p r e s e n t i n g e v i d e n c e on damages or class relating certification. to withholding certified pursuant the had issues yet plaintiffs Rule of to i t s judgment to Because 54(b), amount of transportation costs be on the determined, the Ala. issue R. cross-appeal. 9 Civ. of P. the and income trial liability DOC damages as appeals; court final the 2081084 P r o p r i e t y of the Rule We begin by addressing court's c e r t i f i c a t i o n the 54 (b) certification e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the trial of f i n a l i t y of the judgment even though t h e i s s u e o f damages has not y e t been a d j u d i c a t e d . " ' " [ F ] o r a R u l e 54(b) c e r t i f i c a t i o n o f f i n a l i t y t o be e f f e c t i v e , i t must f u l l y a d j u d i c a t e a t l e a s t one c l a i m o r fully d i s p o s e o f t h e c l a i m s as t h e y r e l a t e t o a t l e a s t one p a r t y . " Haynes v. A l f a F i n . C o r p . , 730 So. 2d 178, 181 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) . " ' " I f an o r d e r d o e s n o t completely d i s p o s e o f o r f u l l y a d j u d i c a t e a t l e a s t one c l a i m , a c o u r t ' s R u l e 54(b) certification of the order i s not e f f e c t i v e . See Haynes v. A l f a F i n . C o r p . , 730 So. 2d 178 ( A l a . 1999). Damages a r e o n l y one p o r t i o n o f a c l a i m t o v i n d i c a t e a l e g a l r i g h t , even t h o u g h t h e damages c l a i m e d may c o n s i s t o f s e v e r a l elements. See i d . a t 181. An order i s not f i n a l i f i t permits a p a r t y to r e t u r n t o c o u r t and p r o v e more damages o r if i t leaves open the question of additional recovery. See Precision A m e r i c a n C o r p . v. L e a s i n g S e r v . C o r p . , 50 5 So. 2d 380, 382 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . " "'Grantham v. V a n d e r z y l , 802 2001). So. 2d 1077, 1080 (Ala. "'"To be s u r e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e c i t e d the f o r m u l a f o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n of a judgment p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. However, '[n]ot every order has the requisite element of f i n a l i t y t h a t can trigger the o p e r a t i o n of Rule 54(b). ' Goldome C r e d i t C o r p . v. P l a y e r , 869 So. 2d 1146, 1147 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) ( e m p h a s i s 10 2081084 added). A c l a i m i s not e l i g i b l e f o r Rule 54(b) c e r t i f i c a t i o n unless i t has been c o m p l e t e l y r e s o l v e d by t h e j u d g m e n t . In t h a t r e g a r d , i t must be remembered t h a t '[d]amages a r e [an e l e m e n t ] o f a c l a i m t o vindicate a legal right.' G r a n t h a m v. Vanderzyl, 802 So. 2d 1077, 1080 (Ala. 2001). "'"'Where t h e amount o f damages i s an i s s u e , ... t h e r e c o g n i z e d r u l e o f l a w i n A l a b a m a i s t h a t no a p p e a l w i l l l i e f r o m a judgment w h i c h does not a d j u d i c a t e that i s s u e by a s c e r t a i n m e n t o f t h e amount o f t h o s e damages. ' Moody v. S t a t e ex r e l . P a y n e , 351 So. 2d 547, 551 ( A l a . 1977). 'That a j u d g m e n t i s n o t f i n a l when t h e amount o f damages has n o t b e e n f i x e d by i t i s unquestionable.' "Automatic" S p r i n k l e r C o r p . o f A m e r i c a v. B.F. G o o d r i c h Co., 351 So. 2d 555, 557 ( A l a . 1977) ( r e c i t a t i o n of t h e R u l e 54(b) f o r m u l a was i n e f f e c t i v e t o r e n d e r a p p e a l a b l e a judgment t h a t r e s o l v e d liability, but reserved the issue of damages f o r f u t u r e r e s o l u t i o n ) . '[T]he trial court cannot confer appellate jurisdiction upon t h i s [C]ourt through d i r e c t i n g e n t r y of judgment under R u l e 54(b) i f the judgment i s not otherwise "final."' Robinson ^ Computer S e r v i c e n t e r s , I n c . , 360 So. 2d 299, 302 ( A l a . 1 9 7 8 ) . Thus, i t i s w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t a c l a i m f o r w h i c h damages a r e s o u g h t is insufficiently adjudicated for Rule 54(b) p u r p o s e s u n t i l t h e e l e m e n t o f damages is resolved; a judgment r e s o l v i n g only liability i n an a c t i o n s e e k i n g damages c a n n o t be c e r t i f i e d as f i n a l p u r s u a n t t o Rule 54(b). T a n n e r v. A l a b a m a Power Co., 617 So. 2d 656 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) . 11 2081084 "'"That t h i s case s u f f e r s from t h i s d e f e c t i s s e l f - e v i d e n t . The t r i a l court purported to c e r t i f y f o r a p p e l l a t e review t h e d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t o f 35 c o u n t e r c l a i m s , 2 9 o f w h i c h s o u g h t damages t h a t a r e y e t t o be d e t e r m i n e d . Because the t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r was i n e f f e c t i v e t o c o n f e r a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n over those c o u n t e r c l a i m s , the judgment, as i t relates to the 29 c o u n t e r c l a i m s s e e k i n g damages, i s n o n f i n a l and n o n r e v i e w a b l e a t t h i s t i m e . " "' Dzwonkowski v. S o n i t r o l o f M o b i l e , 2d 354, 361-62 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) . ' " Martin v. Phillips, 2008) (quoting 7 So. Certain S o u t h e r n N a t u r a l Gas DOC yet 1012, Co., determined transportation 939 So. at 2d 21, the the i t s withholding excess issues of department's r e g u l a t i o n s , the So. (Ala. Civ. 28-29 App. London (Ala. the of its of not collection inmates' amount p r o v i d e d judgment i s f i n a l as in to for w h i c h no damages a r e p e n d i n g , b e c a u s e , i t s a y s , any by the for a refund is barred by of workthe those i s s u e s , as w e l l as t o t h e i s s u e s r e s o l v e d i n f a v o r o f DOC plaintiffs v. 2006)). amount o f damages has and in 892 Lloyd's, on costs earnings 1018-19 Underwrites argues t h a t , although been release 3d Inc., and claim sovereign immunity. The under plaintiffs Art. I, § counter 14, Ala. with Const. 12 the argument t h a t 1901, does not immunity apply to 2081084 actions f o r damages brought against State officials i n d i v i d u a l l y when i t h a s b e e n a l l e g e d , a s i n t h i s c a s e , the o f f i c i a l s a c t e d f r a u d u l e n t l y , i n bad f a i t h , a u t h o r i t y , or i n a mistaken out that defendants, capacities and that their i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f l a w . They p o i n t i n t h e judgment individual beyond sued the t r i a l court who were s u e d b o t h individually, acted held i n their under a that the official mistaken i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of law. Section 14 o f t h e A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1901 p r o v i d e s t h a t " t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a s h a l l n e v e r be made a d e f e n d a n t i n any court of law or e q u i t y . " by Section Ex parte The a b s o l u t e 14 e x t e n d s t o b o t h Alabama Dep't immunity a f f o r d e d t h e S t a t e and S t a t e agencies. o f Human R e s . , 999 So. 2d 891, 895 (Ala. 2 0 0 8 ) ; Ex p a r t e Jackson C o u n t y Bd. o f E d u c . , 4 So. 3d 1099, 1102 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) ; a n d Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a Dep't o f T r a n s p . , 764 So. 2d 1263, 1268 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . "What we have come t o r e f e r t o as 'State i m m u n i t y ' o r ' a b s o l u t e i m m u n i t y ' b a r s c l a i m s , among o t h e r t h i n g s , f o r m o n e t a r y damages a g a i n s t : t h e S t a t e , a S t a t e agency, and a S t a t e o f f i c i a l o r e m p l o y e e s u e d i n h i s o r h e r o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y a s an agent of the S t a t e . See [Ex p a r t e ] D a v i s , 930 So. 2d [497] a t 500 [ ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) ] . S t a t e immunity a l s o may b a r an a c t i o n a g a i n s t c e r t a i n S t a t e o f f i c i a l s s u e d i n t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y . See P h i l l i p s v . Thomas, 555 So. 2d 81, 83 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . 13 2081084 "'Whether i m m u n i t y s e r v e s as a d e f e n s e t o an action against a state o f f i c e r or employee sued i n h i s i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y d e p e n d s upon t h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h t h e a c t i o n involves a State i n t e r e s t . "Our c a s e s a d h e r e t o t h e v i e w t h a t t h e S t a t e h a s an i n t e r e s t such as w i l l p r o h i b i t s u i t a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e o f f i c i a l o r e m p l o y e e where t h e action i s , i n effect, against the State." T a y l o r v. T r o y S t a t e U n i v . , 437 So. 2d 472, 474 ( A l a . 1983) . "'When d e t e r m i n i n g whether a State i n t e r e s t i n an a c t i o n a g a i n s t a s t a t e official o r employee i n h i s or her individual capacity i s sufficient to t r i g g e r t h e i m m u n i t y g r a n t e d b y § 14, o u r cases d i s t i n g u i s h between t h e s t a n d a r d s a p p l i e d t o those s t a t e agents o r employees whose positions exist by virtue of l e g i s l a t i v e p r o n o u n c e m e n t a n d t h o s e who serve as t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o f f i c e r s o f t h i s S t a t e . We have h e l d t h a t S t a t e - a g e n t i m m u n i t y may b a r an a c t i o n a g a i n s t a s t a t e agent o r employee under t h e p r i n c i p l e s a n n o u n c e d i n Ex p a r t e Cranman, 792 So. 2d 392 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . See E x p a r t e B u t t s , 775 So. 2d 173 ( A l a . 2000) (adopting, by m a j o r i t y , t h e Cranman r e s t a t e m e n t of the rule governing State-agent immunity). However, t h i s C o u r t h a s c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d t h a t a c l a i m f o r m o n e t a r y damages made against a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o f f i c e r i n the o f f i c e r ' s i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y i s b a r r e d by S t a t e immunity whenever t h e a c t s t h a t a r e t h e b a s i s o f t h e a l l e g e d l i a b i l i t y were p e r f o r m e d w i t h i n t h e course and scope o f the officer's employment. See, e . g . , B o s h e l l v. W a l k e r C o u n t y S h e r i f f , 598 So. 2d 843, 844 ( A l a . 1992) ("a s h e r i f f , as an e x e c u t i v e o f f i c e r o f t h e S t a t e o f Alabama, i s immune, u n d e r A r t i c l e I , § 14, o f t h e 14 2081084 A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n , f r o m s u i t b a s e d on state law claims arising out of the execution of the d u t i e s of h i s o f f i c e " ) . ' "Davis, 930 So. 2d a t 500-01 (emphasis Ex p a r t e L a w l e y , 38 So. 3d 41, 46-7 added)." ( A l a . 2009). The p l a i n t i f f s c o r r e c t l y p o i n t o u t t h a t c e r t a i n c a u s e s o f a c t i o n a r e n o t b a r r e d by S e c t i o n 14, i n c l u d i n g a c t i o n s f o r an i n j u n c t i o n o r damages b r o u g h t a g a i n s t S t a t e o f f i c i a l s i n t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e c a p a c i t i e s and i n d i v i d u a l l y when, f o r e x a m p l e , i t i s a l l e g e d t h a t the State o f f i c i a l s acted f r a u d u l e n t l y , i n bad faith, beyond interpretation Int'l, their of law. authority, or in a A l a b a m a Dep't o f T r a n s p . v. I n c . , 990 So. 2d 831, 840 A l a b a m a Dep't o f T r a n s p . , 937 mistaken Harbert ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) ; Drummond Co. So. 2d 56, 58 v. ( A l a . 2006). " T h i s C o u r t has q u a l i f i e d t h o s e ' e x c e p t i o n s , ' n o t i n g t h a t ' " [ a ] n a c t i o n i s one a g a i n s t t h e [ S ] t a t e when a f a v o r a b l e r e s u l t f o r the p l a i n t i f f would d i r e c t l y a f f e c t a c o n t r a c t or p r o p e r t y r i g h t of the S t a t e , or w o u l d r e s u l t i n t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s r e c o v e r y o f money f r o m t h e [ S ] t a t e . " ' A l a b a m a A g r i c . & Mech. U n i v . v. J o n e s , 895 So. 2d 867, 873 ( A l a . 2004) ( q u o t i n g S h o a l s Cmty. C o l l . v. C o l a g r o s s , 674 So. 2d 1311, 1314 ( A l a . C i v . App.1995)) (emphasis added i n Jones)." A l a b a m a Dep't o f T r a n s p . , The question plaintiffs' claims we 990 So. 2d a t must answer, t h e r e f o r e , i s whether f o r refunds i n t h i s 15 840. case based upon the the 2081084 i m p r o p e r c o l l e c t i o n o f c e r t a i n money f r o m w o r k - r e l e a s e because of the i n d i v i d u a l defendants' inmates mistaken i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f l a w a r e e s s e n t i a l l y c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e s e e k i n g money damages. " G e n e r a l l y , mandamus r e l i e f i s a v a i l a b l e i n c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s t o compel a S t a t e o f f i c e r t o p e r f o r m t h e m i n i s t e r i a l a c t o f t e n d e r i n g payment o f l i q u i d a t e d o r c e r t a i n sums t h e S t a t e i s l e g a l l y o b l i g a t e d t o pay u n d e r a c o n t r a c t . S t a t e H i g h w a y Dep't v. M i l t o n C o n s t r . Co., 586 So. 2d 872, 875 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ; see a l s o [Alabama A g r i c . & Mech. U n i v . ^ ] J o n e s , 895 So. 2d [867] a t 877-79 [ ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) ] ( d e s c r i b i n g as ' w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d [ t h e ] r u l e t h a t a w r i t o f mandamus w i l l i s s u e t o c o m p e l payment o f o n l y s u c h c l a i m s as a r e l i q u i d a t e d ' and n o t i n g t h a t p r i o r c a s e l a w h a d h e l d ' t h a t payment f o r goods o r s e r v i c e s , f o r w h i c h t h e S t a t e had c o n t r a c t e d and accepted, c o u l d be c o m p e l l e d by mandamus'); and S t a t e Bd. o f A d m i n . v. Roquemore, 218 A l a . 120, 124, 117 So. 757, 760 (1928) ('the claim asserted [ a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e was] f o r an amount f i x e d o r d e t e r m i n a b l e by t h e t e r m s o f t h e c o n t r a c t o f s a l e , ' and was ' d e f i n i t e and certain, ... and not an u n l i q u i d a t e d c l a i m , i n the sense t h a t would render mandamus u n a v a i l a b l e ' ) . " A l a b a m a Dep't o f T r a n s p . , 990 to recover payment of damages f r o m t h e money the So. 2d a t 842. S t a t e t h a t do State is legally not However, seek t o obligated pursuant to a c o n t r a c t are g e n e r a l l y b a r r e d . For suits compel to example, " [ i ] n S t a r k v. T r o y S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 514 So. 2d 46 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) , t h e p l a i n t i f f , an e m p l o y e e o f a S t a t e u n i v e r s i t y , s u e d c e r t a i n S t a t e o f f i c e r s e m p l o y e d by t h e u n i v e r s i t y , a r g u i n g t h a t t h e y had v i o l a t e d t h e 16 pay 2081084 u n i v e r s i t y ' s p o l i c i e s i n u n d e r p a y i n g him d u r i n g a p r i o r academic year. He t h u s s o u g h t damages f o r b a c k pay. The d e f e n d a n t s a r g u e d t h a t t h e a c t i o n was b a r r e d by § 14. [Our supreme c o u r t ] s t a t e d : " ' B a s e d on the foregoing, i f the i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s have n o t a c t e d t o w a r d the p l a i n t i f f i n accordance w i t h the r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s s e t by t h e u n i v e r s i t y , t h e i r a c t s a r e a r b i t r a r y and an a c t i o n s e e k i n g t o c o m p e l them t o p e r f o r m t h e i r l e g a l d u t i e s w i l l n o t be b a r r e d by the s o v e r e i g n immunity c l a u s e of the Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1901; h o w e v e r , t h e a c t i o n for compensatory damages cannot be maintained. The r e a s o n was stated in G u n t e r v. B e a s l e y , 414 So. 2d 41 ( A l a . 1982): " ' " S e c t i o n 14 p r o h i b i t s t h e S t a t e f r o m b e i n g made a d e f e n d a n t i n any c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e and neither the State nor any i n d i v i d u a l can c o n s e n t t o a s u i t against the State. Aland v. Graham, 287 A l a . 226, 250 So. 2d 677 (1971). The a p p l i c a t i o n o f Section 14 to suits against o f f i c e r s o f t h e S t a t e was t r e a t e d i n Ex p a r t e C a r t e r , 395 So. 2d 65 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) , as f o l l o w s : In determining whether an action against a state o f f i c e r i s b a r r e d by § 14, t h e Court considers the nature of the s u i t or the relief demanded, not the character of the office of the p e r s o n a g a i n s t whom t h e 17 2081084 suit is brought. Wallace v. Board of E d u c a t i o n o f Montgomery C o u n t y , 280 Ala. 635, 197 So. 2d 428 (1967) . This Court has held that § 14 prohibits suit against State o f f i c e r s and a g e n t s i n their o f f i c i a l capacity o r i n d i v i d u a l l y when a r e s u l t f a v o r a b l e to the would p l a i n t^ ' ^f^ f i directly affect contract or property right of the State. Southall v. Stricos Corp., 275 Ala. 156, 153 So. 2d 234 (1963).'" (Emphasis added.) "'414 So. "514 So. 2d a t 2d a t 48.' 50-51." A l a b a m a Dep't o f T r a n s p . , 990 I n Ex p a r t e C a r l i s l e , So. So. 894 2d a t 2d 721, 2004), t h i s c o u r t h e l d t h a t a taxpayer's refund through j u d g m e n t and Section 14 financial the a class-action a petition because s t a t u s of the of the following basis for i t s holding: (Ala. Civ. App. lawsuit seeking a tax for of taxes refund State treasury. 18 726 complaint for a refund payment 844-45. a was would This declaratory barred affect court by the provided 2081084 "'A d i r e c t action f o r a refund of t a x e s p a i d t o t h e S t a t e i s e s s e n t i a l l y "a common l a w a c t i o n o f i n d e b i t a t u s a s s u m p s i t against the State." J.R. R a i b l e Co. v . S t a t e Tax Comm'n, 239 A l a . 4 1 , 44, 194 So. 560, 561 ( 1 9 3 9 ) . C l e a r l y , a judgment i n f a v o r o f the c l a s s , which seeks tax refunds ... w o u l d " a f f e c t t h e f i n a n c i a l s t a t u s o f t h e s t a t e t r e a s u r y . " S t a t e Docks Comm'n v . B a r n e s , 225 A l a . [403] a t 4 0 5 , 143 So. [581] a t 582 [ ( 1 9 3 2 ) ] (emphasis added). See also Williams v . Hank's A m b u l a n c e S e r v . , I n c . , 699 So. 2d 1230, 1232 ( A l a . 1997)(a judgment i n favor of medical p r o v i d e r s r e q u i r i n g reimbursement from t h e S t a t e f o r s e r v i c e s , w h i c h payment h a d b e e n withheld under the State's erroneous i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of f e d e r a l s t a t u t e s , would " ' d i r e c t l y a f f e c t a ... p r o p e r t y r i g h t o f t h e S t a t e , ' " and, t h e r e f o r e , was b a r r e d b y § 1 4 ) ; Ex p a r t e S i z e m o r e , 611 So. 2 d 1069, 1070 ( A l a . 1993) (an a c t i o n s e e k i n g a r e f u n d o f income t a x e s p a i d on m i l i t a r y r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s was an u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l " a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e s t a t e , s e e k i n g as a remedy funds from the state treasury")(Houston, J . , d i s s e n t i n g from quashing the w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i ) . ' " Carlisle, 894 So. 2d a t 726 ( q u o t i n g C o r p . , 835 So. 2d 137, In t h i s case, 143 ( A l a . a s i n S t a r k v . T r o y S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 514 2 d 46 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) , t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' the individual authorized from v. G l a d w i n 2002)). So. transportation Patterson defendants improperly costs withheld their or work-release 19 action alleging overcharged more money earnings that them f o r than based was upon 2081084 m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of law c a n n o t be b a r r e d by the sovereign- i m m u n i t y c l a u s e o f t h e A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1901. on the a u t h o r i t y of S t a r k because a judgment and C a r l i s l e , supra, awarding refunds of we the However, hold improperly c o l l e c t e d money w o u l d a f f e c t t h e f i n a n c i a l s t a t u s o f t h e treasury, the action for refunds cannot that be State maintained. B e c a u s e t h e p l a i n t i f f s c a n n o t r e c o v e r damages i n t h i s a c t i o n , the j u d g m e n t was i s reviewable p r o p e r l y c e r t i f i e d as f i n a l and, by this court. DOC's DOC argues first therefore, that appeal the claims asserted against the d e p a r t m e n t by p l a i n t i f f R o b i n s o n a r e b a r r e d by t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of sovereign named o n l y clear a i m m u n i t y u n d e r § 14, A l a . C o n s t . 1901. the suit b a r r e d by Comm'n, 11 department i n h i s complaint. against § 14. So. a State agency l i k e the Robinson Alabama law is department i s A l a b a m a Dep't o f C o r r . v. Montgomery C o u n t y 3d 189, 191 ( A l a . 2008). " S e c t i o n 14, A l a . C o n s t . 1901, p r o v i d e s : ' [ T ] h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a s h a l l n e v e r be made a d e f e n d a n t i n any c o u r t o f l a w o r e q u i t y . ' (Emphasis added.) 'The wall of immunity erected by § 14 is nearly i m p r e g n a b l e . ' P a t t e r s o n v. G l a d w i n C o r p . , 835 So. 2d 137, 142 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . I n d e e d , as r e g a r d s t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a and i t s a g e n c i e s , t h e w a l l i s a b s o l u t e l y i m p r e g n a b l e . Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a Dep't o f Human Res., 20 2081084 999 So. 2d 8 9 1 , 895 ( A l a . 2008) ( ' S e c t i o n 14 a f f o r d s absolute immunity t o both t h e S t a t e and S t a t e a g e n c i e s . ' ) ; Ex p a r t e J a c k s o n C o u n t y Bd. o f E d u c . , 4 So. 3d 1099, 1102 ( A l a . 2008) (same); A t k i n s o n v . S t a t e , 986 So. 2d 408, 410-11 ( A l a . 2007) ( s a m e ) ; [ E x p a r t e Alabama Department o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n ( I n r e Good Hope C o n t r a c t i n g Co. v. A l a b a m a D e p a r t m e n t o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n ) , 978 So. 2d 17 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) ] (same); Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a Dep't o f T r a n s p . , 764 So. 2d 1263, 1268 ( A l a . 2000) (same); M i t c h e l l v . D a v i s , 598 So. 2d 8 0 1 , 806 ( A l a . 1992) (same). ' A b s o l u t e i m m u n i t y ' means j u s t t h a t t h e S t a t e a n d i t s a g e n c i e s a r e not s u b j e c t t o s u i t under any t h e o r y . " A l a b a m a Dep't o f C o r r . , to name a n y o t h e r 11 So. 3d a t 1 9 1 . R o b i n s o n ' s defendant trial court of subject-matter from the time i n h i s complaint Transp., complaint matter the 6 So. 3d 1126, 1128 jurisdiction trial amendment complaint court Ex p a r t e (Ala. Alabama 2008) lacked to the o r i g i n a l court complaint). therefore, t o e n t e r t a i n an Thus, Robinson's c o u l d n o t be r e v i v e d b y c o n s o l i d a t i o n o f R o b i n s o n ' s a c t i o n w i t h t h e o t h e r a c t i o n s ; we d i s m i s s DOC's a p p e a l as that the subject- and t h a t , jurisdiction Dep't o f (holding agency d i d n o t invoke of the t r i a l also deprived the j u r i s d i c t i o n over the complaint of i t s f i l i n g . naming a S t a t e failure i t purports t o be f r o m a judgment entered insofar i n favor of p l a i n t i f f R o b i n s o n on h i s c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e d e p a r t m e n t , a n d 21 a 2081084 we i n s t r u c t the t r i a l court Robinson's complaint DOC a l s o a r g u e s t h a t a l l t h e p l a i n t i f f s e x c e p t plaintiff for lack of subject-matter to dismiss jurisdiction. W i l l i a m s l a c k s t a n d i n g t o s e e k an i n j u n c t i o n r e q u i r i n g DOC t o comply w i t h t h e department's r e g u l a t i o n s because, o t h e r Williams, the p l a i n t i f f s a r e no l o n g e r i n the than work-release program. "Whether a p a r t y h a s s t a n d i n g ' t u r n s on " w h e t h e r the p a r t y has been i n j u r e d i n f a c t and whether t h e i n j u r y i s t o a l e g a l l y p r o t e c t e d r i g h t " ' s o as ' " t o e n s u r e t h a t he w i l l v i g o r o u s l y p r e s e n t h i s c a s e . " ' S t a t e v . P r o p e r t y a t 2018 R a i n b o w D r i v e , 740 So. 2d 1025, 1027-28 ( A l a . 1999) . T h i s C o u r t h a s s a i d t h a t a p a r t y h a s s t a n d i n g where, among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e r e i s 'an a c t u a l , c o n c r e t e a n d p a r t i c u l a r i z e d "injury i n fact"--"an invasion of a legally p r o t e c t e d i n t e r e s t . " ' Alabama A l c o h o l i c Beverage C o n t r o l Bd. v . H e n r i - D u v a l W i n e r y , L L C , 890 So. 2d 70, 74 ( A l a . 2003) ( r e l i e d upon i n Town o f C e d a r B l u f f v . C i t i z e n s C a r i n g f o r C h i l d r e n , 904 So. 2d 1253 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) ) . " W o r k i n g v. J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y E l e c t i o n Comm'n, 2 So. 3d 827, 832 (Ala. 2008). DOC argues currently participating suffering an a c t u a l that the p l a i n t i f f s i n the work-release injury t o any l e g a l l y who are not program a r e not protected right b e c a u s e t h e y no l o n g e r have any l e g a l l y p r o t e c t e d i n t e r e s t i n the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t h e work-release 22 program. 2081084 However, Ala. although the a p p l i c a t i o n Code 1975, § 14-8-6, w h i c h authority t o w i t h h o l d moneys earnings, i s central relates from to this and c o n s t r u c t i o n o f to the department's an i n m a t e ' s appeal, work-release the p l a i n t i f f s also c h a l l e n g e the assessment of other charges a g a i n s t a l l inmates, s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e d r u g - t e s t f e e and t h e s e l f - i n i t i a t e d "co-pay." Because a l l t h e r e m a i n i n g p l a i n t i f f s medical have b e e n a n d may c o n t i n u e t o be s u b j e c t e d t o t h o s e f e e s , t h e y h a v e , a n d may c o n t i n u e t o , s u f f e r an i n j u r y t o a l e g a l l y p r o t e c t e d i n t e r e s t . Thus, a l l t h e r e m a i n i n g p l a i n t i f f s t h o s e f e e s , even though, have s t a n d i n g t o c h a l l e n g e with the exception of W i l l i a m s , they are not c u r r e n t l y p a r t i c i p a n t s i n a work-release DOC contends that injunctive relief to withholding more than the t r i a l court the p l a i n t i f f s , 32.5% of a erred inmates i n granting enjoining work-release earnings to defray costs of i n c a r c e r a t i o n work-release program. and from more f o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n the t r i a l money from compliance from inmate's charging c o s t s than the amount s t i p u l a t e d i n Admin. Reg. No. 401, § V I I . B . for DOC The b a s i s c o u r t ' s i n j u n c t i o n was t h a t t h e c o l l e c t i o n o f inmates' with work-release the p r o v i s i o n s 23 of earnings Admin. was Reg. not No. in 401. 2081084 However, s i n c e the d e p a r t m e n t has f o r m a l l y amended t h a t r e g u l a t i o n so t h a t i t i s now to c o l l e c t authorized and to withhold earnings. moot. The "A entry up of the the to trial court's increased 40% of an judgment, transportation inmate's i s no real costs work-release amendment o f t h e r e g u l a t i o n r e n d e r s t h i s c a s e i s moot when t h e r e issue controversy and i t s e e k s t o d e t e r m i n e an a b s t r a c t q u e s t i o n w h i c h does n o t on existing facts or rights. of D a w k i n s , 268 Alabama S t a t e Accordingly, DOC State, Ala. Bd. we 13, County 104 not inmate in holding earnings gross trial transportation DOC 428 (1915); Municipal 827 So. 3d 120, American ( A l a . 2009). DOC i n holding from c h a r g i n g or other employment- o f an i n m a t e ' s work- t o 40% o f an r a t h e r t h a n up t o 40% earnings. 24 that a work- a l s o a s s e r t s t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t t o be w i t h h e l d , v. issue. w i t h h e l d 40% t h a t § 14-8-6 a l l o w s up v. Underwood 129 court erred costs v. Employees (1958)." this precludes r e l a t e d c h a r g e s once i t has release earnings. 2d consider contends t h a t the § 14-8-6, A l a . Code 1975, release So. 69 So. and o f E d u c . , 39 will rest P o s t a l T e l e g r a p h C a b l e Co. C i t y o f Montgomery, 193 A l a . 234, Federation the erred inmate's o f an net inmate's 2081084 S e c t i o n 14-8-6 p r o v i d e s a s f o l l o w s : "The e m p l o y e r o f an i n m a t e i n v o l v e d i n work r e l e a s e s h a l l p a y t h e i n m a t e ' s wages d i r e c t l y t o t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f C o r r e c t i o n s . The d e p a r t m e n t may a d o p t regulations concerning the disbursement o f any e a r n i n g s o f t h e i n m a t e s i n v o l v e d i n work r e l e a s e . The d e p a r t m e n t i s a u t h o r i z e d t o w i t h h o l d f r o m an inmate's earnings t h e cost i n c i d e n t t o t h e inmate's c o n f i n e m e n t a s t h e d e p a r t m e n t s h a l l deem a p p r o p r i a t e and r e a s o n a b l e . I n no e v e n t s h a l l t h e w i t h h e l d e a r n i n g s e x c e e d 40 p e r c e n t o f t h e e a r n i n g s o f t h e inmate. A f t e r a l l e x p e n s e s have b e e n d e d u c t e d b y the department, t h e remainder o f t h e inmate's e a r n i n g s s h a l l be c r e d i t e d t o h i s o r h e r a c c o u n t w i t h t h e department. Upon h i s o r h e r r e l e a s e a l l moneys b e i n g h e l d b y t h e d e p a r t m e n t s h a l l be p a i d over t o t h e inmate." Our statutory inquiry i s governed by settled principles construction: "'"'The f u n d a m e n t a l r u l e o f statutory construction i s that t h i s Court i s t o a s c e r t a i n and e f f e c t u a t e the l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t as expressed i n the statute. L e a g u e o f Women V o t e r s v . R e n f r o , 292 A l a . 128, 290 So. 2 d 167 (1974). In this ascertainment, we must l o o k t o t h e e n t i r e A c t instead of i s o l a t e d phrases or clauses; Opinion of the J u s t i c e s , 264 A l a . 176, 85 So. 2 d 391 ( 1 9 5 6 ) . ' " ' " B r i g h t v . C a l h o u n , 988 So. 2d 492, 497 ( A l a . 2008) ( q u o t i n g C i t y o f B e s s e m e r v . M c C l a i n , 957 So. 2 d 1061, 1074-75 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n D a r k s D a i r y , I n c . v . A l a b a m a D a i r y Comm'n, 367 So. 2 d 1378, 1380 ( A l a . 1979) ( e m p h a s i s o m i t t e d ) ) . 25 of 2081084 "To d e t e r m i n e l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t , t h e C o u r t must f i r s t look t o the language o f the s t a t u t e . I f , g i v i n g t h e s t a t u t o r y language i t s p l a i n and o r d i n a r y meaning, we conclude that the language is u n a m b i g u o u s , t h e n t h e r e i s no room f o r j u d i c i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n . Ex p a r t e W a d d a i l , 827 So. 2d 789, 794 (Ala. 2001). " F l u k e r v. W o l f f , (Ala. 2010). [Ms. 1081708, M a r c h 19, 2010] So. 3d In a d d i t i o n , " ' " [ t ] h e r e i s a presumption t h a t e v e r y w o r d , s e n t e n c e , o r p r o v i s i o n was i n t e n d e d useful purpose, effect i s t o be g i v e n h a s some force and e f f e c t , So. 2d 227, 236 ( A l a . 2000) f o r some and t h a t t o e a c h , a n d a l s o t h a t no words o r p r o v i s i o n s were u s e d . " ' " 779 , some superfluous Ex p a r t e U n i r o y a l T i r e Co., ( q u o t i n g S h e f f i e l d v. S t a t e , 708 So. 2d 899, 909 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1997) ( q u o t i n g i n t u r n 82 C.J.S. S t a t u t e s § 316 a t p. 551-52 (1953))). "[I]n i n t e r p r e t i n g a s t a t u t e , a c o u r t a c c e p t s an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e s t a t u t e by t h e agency charged w i t h i t s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , i f t h a t interpretation i s reasonable. ... Absent a c o m p e l l i n g r e a s o n n o t t o do s o , a c o u r t w i l l g i v e g r e a t w e i g h t t o an a g e n c y ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f a s t a t u t e a n d w i l l c o n s i d e r them p e r s u a s i v e . " S t a t e v . P e t t a w a y , 794 So. 2d 1153, 1157 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2001) (emphasis added). DOC a r g u e s t h a t , f r o m t h e p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f t h e s t a t u t e , the 40% c a p a p p l i e s o n l y to the costs 26 of confinement. It 2081084 asserts that collecting nothing those in fees the and statute costs an prohibits inmate may i t from incur for e m p l o y m e n t - r e l a t e d p u r p o s e s , s u c h as t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c o s t s t o and f r o m t h e i r p l a c e o f employment, w h i c h DOC costs of confinement. In capping at 40% work-release inmate's confinement, costs expense," the t r i a l We of argues are not disagree. the amount DOC may e a r n i n g s "whether work release, c o u r t r e a s o n e d as or withhold from i t i s for costs any other fee a of or follows: "[DOC's] i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w o u l d a l l o w i t t o t a k e 100 p e r c e n t o f an i n m a t e ' s e a r n i n g s i f [DOC] could a t t r i b u t e an e x p e n s e t o s o m e t h i n g o t h e r t h a n a c o s t o f c o n f i n e m e n t . C o s t s o f work r e l e a s e ([DOC's] t e r m u s e d t o a v o i d § 14-8-6) c o u l d h y p o t h e t i c a l l y i n c l u d e the cost of guards a s s i g n e d t o work release, p e r s o n n e l t o h a n d l e t h e p a p e r w o r k f o r work r e l e a s e , and b o o k k e e p e r s who a c c o u n t f o r t h e money r e c e i v e d . The e x c e p t i o n s w o u l d s w a l l o w t h e r u l e . " S e c t i o n 14-8-6 i s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e c h a p t e r o f t h e A l a b a m a Code authorizing the department programs f o r S t a t e inmates. to institute work-release T h a t s e c t i o n a u t h o r i z e s DOC withhold f r o m an i n m a t e ' s e a r n i n g s t h e c o s t incident inmate's confinement appropriate reasonable." § 14-8-6. as [DOC] shall deem "to to the and The s t a t u t e s p e c i f i c a l l y l i m i t s DOC's power t o w i t h h o l d moneys f r o m t h e i n m a t e ' s e a r n i n g s : " I n no 27 2081084 event shall earnings DOC it the withheld of the earnings inmate." on work-release confinement but, However, of the transportation f e e s and inmates i n s t e a d , are although 40 percent fees Id. argues t h a t the laundry imposes exceed are not costs of c o s t s r e l a t e d t o work r e l e a s e . work-release inmates are not technically c o n f i n e d w i t h i n an i n s t i t u t i o n d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d t h a t t h e y a r e engaged i n t h e i r w o r k - r e l e a s e employment, a c o n c l u s i o n costs with associated i n c i d e n t to t h e i r S t a t e ex their 2003) (quoting Crim. App. C a g l e v. 1992)) c o n f i n e m e n t , ' " and w o r k - r e l e a s e employment a r e c o n f i n e m e n t does n o t r e l . Patterson, 860 So. State, "dependent on follow. 2d 363, 611 ("'[W]ork r e l e a s e So. 366 2d is a costs release that inmate institution, Crowe v. (Ala. Civ. 1199, 1201 form of or The App. (Ala. custodial relating are dependent is still, despite his to another on the in actuality, or 28 the word " i n c i d e n t " i s d e f i n e d M e r r i a m - W e b s t e r ' s C o l l e g i a t e D i c t i o n a r y 629 Thus, See not " ' [ s ] e r v i n g on work r e l e a s e i s s e r v i n g sentence to confinement.'"). as that her fact thing in ( 1 1 t h ed. that confined temporary law." 2003). the work- in a penal release for 2081084 employment purposes pursuant "incident" t o the inmate's to § 14-8-2, would be costs confinement. W i t h o u t q u e s t i o n , § 14-8-6 p r o v i d e s t h a t DOC i s p e r m i t t e d to withhold the costs incident to a work-release confinement from t h e inmate's e a r n i n g s . inmate's However, t h e a b i l i t y to w i t h h o l d a p o r t i o n o f a work-release inmate's earnings i s r e s t r i c t e d b y a 40% c a p on t h e amount t h a t may be w i t h h e l d . The way t h a t DOC w o u l d have u s c o n s t r u e t h e p h r a s e "costs i n c i d e n t t o t h e i n m a t e ' s c o n f i n e m e n t " w o u l d r e n d e r t h e 40% c a p meaningless. Under DOC's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , t o do i s t o c l a s s i f y something other confinement." cost as a than whatever a "cost F o r example, "cost transportation. incident cost i t d e s i r e s t o deduct as incident DOC m i g h t t o work a l l DOC w o u l d h a v e to classify release" the inmate's a particular or a cost of I f t h e cost i s not " i n c i d e n t t o the inmate's c o n f i n e m e n t , " c o n c l u d e s DOC, t h e r e i s no l i m i t on DOC's power to deduct t h e money f r o m a work-release inmate's earnings. T h i s w o u l d a l l o w DOC's e x c e p t i o n t o s w a l l o w t h e r u l e a n d w o u l d render t h e cap i n s t i t u t e d by t h e L e g i s l a t u r e meaningless, s o m e t h i n g t h a t t h i s c o u r t s h o u l d be l o a t h e t o do i n l i g h t o f the principle o f s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n t h a t r e q u i r e s us t o 29 2081084 g i v e " ' " e v e r y word, s e n t e n c e , or p r o v i s i o n effect."'" Ex p a r t e U n i r o y a l Tire Co., ... some f o r c e 779 So. 2d a t and 236. S e c t i o n 14-8-6 p r o v i d e s t h a t " [ i ] n no e v e n t s h a l l t h e w i t h h e l d earnings exceed 40 p e r c e n t of the e a r n i n g s of the Thus, we c o n c l u d e t h a t DOC a work-release inmate's On application may n o t w i t h h o l d more t h a n 40% paying of wages. for rehearing, DOC asserts i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f § 14-8-6 w o u l d p r e v e n t DOC and inmate." restitution, child support, and that from our collecting other similar c h a r g e s f r o m t h e income r e c e i v e d by i n m a t e s t h r o u g h t h e workrelease program. a u t h o r i z e s DOC We disagree. t o w i t h h o l d up Section 14-8-6 t o 40% o f t h e wages an e a r n s i n work r e l e a s e i n o r d e r t o d e f r a y t h e " c o s t s to the inmate's confinement" t h a t are i n c u r r e d , i n s t a n c e , by DOC. The o n l y t o t h e moneys DOC limits, inmate incident i n the 40% cap i n § 14-8-6 o b v i o u s l y first applies can w i t h h o l d f r o m i n m a t e s ' w o r k - r e l e a s e e a r n i n g s f o r t h e d i r e c t b e n e f i t o f DOC. 8-6 plainly i n any way, the a u t h o r i t y No l a n g u a g e i n § 14¬ o f DOC to c o l l e c t and p a y moneys owed by an i n m a t e t o t h i r d p a r t i e s , s u c h as v i c t i m s of the inmate's crime or c h i l d r e n of the inmate, e a r n e d by t h e i n m a t e from f r o m w o r k - r e l e a s e employment. 30 income Assuming 2081084 DOC a c t s i n accordance w i t h a v a l i d court order or pursuant to statutory law regarding and the department's disbursements l a w f u l l y pay internal regulations from w o r k - r e l e a s e e a r n i n g s , a t h i r d p a r t y from w o r k - r e l e a s e e a r n i n g s making such payments i n a d d i t i o n t o o t h e r v a l i d w o u l d e x c e e d 40% any of those e a r n i n g s . p a r t of the e a r n i n g s DOC authorize clothing, toiletries argues those DOC can even i f withholdings, simply cannot r e t a i n e x c e e d i n g 40% f o r i t s own benefit. a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t s s i g n e d by w o r k - r e l e a s e participants world DOC to deduct laundry transportation from w o r k - r e l e a s e that fees deduction DOC Williams's i s barred inmates' his contractual Williams are c o n t r a v e n e § 14-8-6, o r they are c o n t r a c t s of relies cost of Thus, DOC unlawfulness of agreement t o allow a r g u e s , however, t h a t either directly the for free- the earnings. regarding by contracts Williams and claim of those fees. work-release fees, fees illegal, that because they are void the they because adhesion. on the principle that "'"[w]hen both p a r t i e s , a c t i n g u n d e r a m i s t a k e o f l a w , make a c o n t r a c t w h i c h the law f o r b i d s , t h e n the p r i n c i p a l s are not l i a b l e It is a mistake of law, 31 known in law, yet thereunder probably 2081084 unknown i n f a c t , t o t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e c o n t r a c t a t t h e t i m e o f i t s execution."'" Corp., 32 L u c k y J a c k s E n t m ' t C t r . , LLC v . J o p a t B l d g . So. 3d 565, 569 (Ala. 2009) (quoting Walker v. S o u t h e r n T r u c k i n g C o r p . , 283 A l a . 5 5 1 , 553-54, 219 So. 2d 379, 381 (1969), 348, quoting i n turn Wilson 89 So. 584, 588-89 ( 1 9 2 1 ) , v . M c K l e r o y , 206 A l a . 342, o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s b y C r o s s v . R u d d e r , 380 So. 2d 766 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) ) . principle has this h a s a p p l i c a t i o n e v e n when t h e m e a n i n g o f a s t a t u t e n o t y e t been p r o n o u n c e d by a c o u r t . Ctr., Notably, 32 explained So. that 3d at such 569 ("However, circumstance question of f i r s t impression -- Lucky Jacks this Court Entm't long the r e s o l u t i o n ago of a as t o t h e m e a n i n g o f a s t a t u t e -¬ does n o t e x c u s e t h e p a r t i e s f r o m c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e s t a t u t e so as t o r e n d e r v o i d c o n t r a c t s enforceable."). Our supreme court explained the a p p l i c a t i o n of the p r i n c i p l e that a mutual mistake of law renders a contract i n violation of t h a t law v o i d e v e n i f t h e s t a t u t e i n q u e s t i o n h a s y e t t o be i n t e r p r e t e d thusly: "'The s t a t u t e s promulgated a s now. on t h i s Every subject one was were required then as fully t o know their p r o p e r c o n s t r u c t i o n , a n d n e i t h e r i g n o r a n c e n o r d o u b t was any excuse. Ignorantia facti excusat; 32 ignorantia juris non 2081084 excusat.'" 569 I d . a t 570 ( q u o t i n g P r i n c e v. P r i n c e , 67 A l a . 565, (1880)). release We t h e r e f o r e a g r e e w i t h W i l l i a m s t h a t t h e w o r k - c o n t r a c t s , which c o n f l i c t the deduction with § 14-8-6 b y a l l o w i n g o f c e r t a i n e x p e n s e s r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e 40% c a p , a r e v o i d a n d t h a t DOC's r e l i a n c e on t h o s e c o n t r a c t s t o escape t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e 40% cap i n § 14-8-6 i s m i s p l a c e d . DOC further contends that the trial court erred in h o l d i n g t h a t t h e 40% w i t h h o l d i n g cap a p p l i e s t o a work-release inmate's net earnings, The A l a b a m a not h i s gross Code d o e s n o t d e f i n e " e a r n i n g s " 8-6. Statutes concerning inmates' earnings earnings. as t h a t t e r m i s u s e d i n § 14¬ c o u n t y and m u n i c i p a l s p e c i f i c a l l y authorize the withholding of a percentage of the inmates' gross earnings of confinement. inmate's applied work-release to defray the costs § 14-8-37, A l a . Code 1975 ("Of e a c h earnings, 25 p e r c e n t to the costs of h i s gross wages i n c i d e n t t o the inmate's [county] shall be confinement." ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) ) ; a n d § 15-22-75, A l a . Code 1975 ("The mayor is the authorized costs to withhold from a [municipal] inmate's wages i n c i d e n t t o t h e i n m a t e ' s c o n f i n e m e n t a s t h e mayor s h a l l deem a p p r o p r i a t e a n d r e a s o n a b l e , i n no e v e n t s h a l l p r o v i d e d however, t h a t t h e mayor w i t h h o l d more t h a n 20 p e r c e n t 33 of 2081084 such inmate's gross wages inmate's confinement." as the costs incident to such (emphasis a d d e d ) ) . As p r e v i o u s l y m e n t i o n e d , "in i n t e r p r e t i n g a s t a t u t e , a court accepts an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e s t a t u t e by t h e agency charged w i t h i t s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , i f t h a t interpretation i s reasonable. ... Absent a c o m p e l l i n g r e a s o n n o t t o do s o , a c o u r t w i l l g i v e g r e a t w e i g h t t o an a g e n c y ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f a s t a t u t e a n d w i l l c o n s i d e r them p e r s u a s i v e . " P e t t a w a y , 794 So. 2d a t 1157. Because the L e g i s l a t u r e d i d not s p e c i f y w h e t h e r DOC was a u t h o r i z e d t o w i t h h o l d 40% o f a S t a t e inmate's gross for DOC or net work-release to look to similar earnings, statutes i t was logical f o r guidance. DOC's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f § 14-8-6 i s r e a s o n a b l e , compelling reason interpretation. not to give great a n d we c a n f i n d weight no to that A c c o r d i n g l y , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l court e r r e d i n h o l d i n g t h a t § 14-8-6 a u t h o r i z e s t h e w i t h h o l d i n g o f 40% o f a w o r k - r e l e a s e gross earnings; inmate's net earnings therefore, j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as i t h e l d we the trial court's otherwise. The p l a i n t i f f s ' The p l a i n t i f f s ' reverse and n o t h i s o r h e r cross-appeal cross-appeal, i n s o f a r as i t r e l a t e s t o Robinson's claims a g a i n s t the department, i s d i s m i s s e d f o r the 34 2081084 same r e a s o n s DOC's a p p e a l , i n s o f a r as i t r e l a t e s t o R o b i n s o n ' s c l a i m s a g a i n s t the department, Senate B i l l i s dismissed. 20, i n t r o d u c e d i n 1992, amended § 14-8-6 and i n c r e a s e d t h e amount t h e d e p a r t m e n t was a u t h o r i z e d t o w i t h h o l d f r o m a w o r k - r e l e a s e i n m a t e ' s e a r n i n g s f r o m 32.5% t o 40%. The p l a i n t i f f s contend t h a t the b i l l i s v o i d because, they say, i t was a r e v e n u e - g e n e r a t i n g measure that originated in the A l a b a m a S e n a t e and n o t t h e A l a b a m a House o f R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , where r e v e n u e m e a s u r e s a r e r e q u i r e d t o o r i g i n a t e . § 70, A l a . C o n s t . It refers A r t i c l e IV, 1901. i s well settled to b i l l s that that the p r o v i s i o n levy a t a x as o f § 70 a t a means of issue collecting revenue. S i z e m o r e v. K r u p p O i l Co., 597 So. 2d 211, 213 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 2 ) ; Y a n c e y & Y a n c e y C o n s t r . Co. v. D e K a l b County Comm'n, 361 So. 2d 4 ( A l a . 1 9 7 8 ) ; and O p i n i o n o f t h e J u s t i c e s No. 131, "'[w]hen 259 an A l a . 514, a c t has 66 So. f o r i t s main 2d 921 purpose (1953). However, provision f o r the g e n e r a l w e l f a r e by e n a c t i n g a scheme w i t h i n t h e s t a t e ' s p o l i c e power, i t i s n o t one t o r a i s e r e v e n u e , t h o u g h i t does so as an incident t o s u c h scheme.' B e e l a n d W h o l e s a l e Co. 35 v. Kaufman, 2081084 234 Ala. So. 2d a t Our purposes 249, 260, 174 So. 516, 525 supreme c o u r t has determined (1937)." Sizemore, 597 213. are to provide f o r the that general bills whose m a i n welfare, but which a l s o r a i s e r e v e n u e i n c i d e n t t o t h e i r schemes, a r e n o t required t o o r i g i n a t e i n t h e House. Ala. 87, 173 So. 864 D e a r b o r n v. J o h n s o n , 234 (1937). " I n O p i n i o n o f t h e J u s t i c e s No. 13, 223 A l a . 369, 136 So. 589 ( 1 9 3 1 ) , t h e C h i e f J u s t i c e and A s s o c i a t e J u s t i c e s o p i n e d t h a t an a c t i m p o s i n g a g a s o l i n e t a x was not a 'revenue bill.' In reaching this c o n c l u s i o n , the J u s t i c e s opined: "'The p r o v i s i o n o f s e c t i o n 70 o f o u r Constitution, saying: "No revenue bill s h a l l be p a s s e d d u r i n g t h e l a s t f i v e d a y s o f t h e s e s s i o n , " was c o n s t r u e d i n Kennamer v. S t a t e , 150 A l a . 74, 43 So. 482 [(1907)]. That case i n v o l v e d the p r o v i s i o n s of a l o c a l r o a d law l e v y i n g a p r i v i l e g e t a x on vehicles for the construction and maintenance of p u b l i c roads. " ' T h i s l e v y was s u s t a i n e d upon t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e p u r p o s e was n o t s i m p l y t o raise revenue, but to require those d e r i v i n g a s p e c i a l b e n e f i t f r o m t h e use o f t h e r o a d s , and i m p o s i n g a s p e c i a l b u r d e n i n the maintenance of same, to pay a reasonable sum f o r the privilege, the p r o c e e d s t o be d e v o t e d t o r o a d p u r p o s e s . "'The c o n s t r u c t i o n and m a i n t e n a n c e o f h i g h w a y s i s r e f e r a b l e t o t h e p o l i c e power 36 84, 2081084 of the s t a t e i n promoting c o n v e n i e n c e and w e l f a r e . the public "'The Kennamer Case i s a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e v i e w t h a t l e g i s l a t i o n t o t h a t end, and not f o r revenue merely, i s not a "revenue b i l l " w i t h i n the quoted clause of s e c t i o n "'An e x c i s e t a x on m o t o r f u e l s i s l e v i e d f o r l i k e r e a s o n s as t h e v e h i c l e t a x c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e Kennamer C a s e ; n a m e l y , s p e c i a l burdens f o r s p e c i a l b e n e f i t s . ' "223 A l a . a t 370, 136 So. a t 590. The J u s t i c e s a l s o s t a t e d i n O p i n i o n o f t h e J u s t i c e s No. 37, 232 A l a . 60, 166 So. 710 ( 1 9 3 6 ) : "'[W]hen the main purpose i s as described i n s e c t i o n 1 of the s u b s t i t u t e for House B i l l 180, r e f e r r e d t o i n y o u r i n q u i r y , i t i s c l e a r t h a t r a i s i n g revenue i s merely i n c i d e n t a l t o the purpose there defined. Kennamer v. S t a t e , 150 A l a . 74, 43 So. 482 [ ( 1 9 0 7 ) ] ; 54 C o r p u s J u r i s , 744.' "232 A l a . a t 62, 166 So. a t 712. "H.B. 713's p r i m a r y p u r p o s e i s t o p r o v i d e f o r a d i s p o s i t i o n of the fees c o l l e c t e d f o r r e t u r n i n g p o l l u t e d groundwater t o a q u a l i t y comparable t o i t s previous state. The p u r p o s e o f t h e a c t i s n o t simply t o r a i s e revenue but t o p r o v i d e certain environmental protections regarding polluted groundwater. I t i s c l e a r t h a t r a i s i n g revenue i s merely i n c i d e n t a l t o the purpose d e f i n e d i n the a c t ; t h e r e f o r e , b a s e d upon t h e l a w o f t h i s s t a t e , as e x p r e s s e d i n o p i n i o n s o f t h i s C o u r t , we a r e o f t h e o p i n i o n t h a t H.B. 713 i s n o t a ' r e v e n u e b i l l ' and may, t h e r e f o r e , be p a s s e d d u r i n g t h e l a s t f i v e d a y s of the l e g i s l a t i v e s e s s i o n . " 37 2081084 Opinion o f t h e J u s t i c e s No. 324, 511 So. 2d 505, 512-13 ( A l a . 1987). The 8-6 c h i e f purpose of Senate B i l l i n 1992, was t o r e q u i r e t h o s e who S t a t e ' s p e n i t e n t i a r i e s , b u t who the department's work-release toward the police of the r e c e i v i n g housing, burden of those benefits."'" Id. are i n c a r c e r a t e d i n the a r e e a r n i n g money as p a r t sum the The and the statute like the 512. to help Accordingly, contrary i s without The plaintiffs The the to 40% earnings of the for special bill was not argument merit. contend a work-release those shoulder plaintiffs' that § u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y vague b e c a u s e i t does n o t up requires c o s t s , i . e . , " ' " s p e c i a l burdens r e q u i r e d t o o r i g i n a t e i n t h e House. to of p r o g r a m , t o pay a r e a s o n a b l e State. board, at 14¬ i n c a r c e r a t i o n , which i s w i t h i n c o s t s of t h e i r power 20, w h i c h amended § inmate's net are s u b j e c t to w i t h h o l d i n g . 6 The 14-8-6 is s p e c i f y whether earnings or gross c a s e s on w h i c h the We recognize t h a t i n i t s judgment the t r i a l court d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r DOC was e x c e e d i n g t h e 40% cap u n d e r § 14-8-6 was moot b e c a u s e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t s a i d , t h e regulation i n place a t t h e t i m e , A d m i n . Reg. No. 410, a u t h o r i z e d a w i t h h o l d i n g o f 32.5%. However, t h e t r i a l c o u r t went on t o a d d r e s s t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r more t h a n 40% o f an i n m a t e ' s w o r k - r e l e a s e e a r n i n g s c o u l d be w i t h h e l d . A f t e r the 6 38 2081084 plaintiffs rely i n support of t h i s constitutionality of criminal conduct may or which lead enforcement. They revealed authority, no administrative cite statutes no a u t h o r i t y , statute, for such the that when interpretation, construing statute by enforcement an absent a compelling statute reason has that that an i s open t o Indeed, t h e law i s w e l l statute i s open to i s not u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , but, administrative of s a i d certain discriminatory proposition as § 14-8-6, t h e meaning o f a s t a t u t e , the or the and our r e s e a r c h administrative the statute address prohibiting to arbitrary interpretation i s unconstitutional. settled argument in i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the agency charged a r e t o be a c c e p t e d n o t t o do s o . with by a Alabama the court Dep't o f Revenue v . J i m Beam B r a n d s Co., 11 So. 3d 858, 866 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008). Therefore, § 14-8-6, A l a . Code 1975, i s n o t u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y vague. The plaintiffs claim fees, the drug-testing that laundry fees, transportation f e e , and t h e s e l f - i n i t i a t e d m e d i c a l co- t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s judgment, t h e department f o r m a l l y amended Admin. Reg. No. 410 t o a u t h o r i z e w i t h h o l d i n g o f up t o 40% o f an i n m a t e ' s w o r k - r e l e a s e e a r n i n g s . As a m a t t e r o f j u d i c i a l economy, we w i l l a d d r e s s t h i s i s s u e . 39 2081084 pay are argue a l l i m p o s e d by that thus, the that therefore fees the are invalid, authorized medical properly by a co-pay The by authorized any first collection are department can r e g u l a t i o n s t h a t are c o n s i s t e n t w i t h and authorizing they statute. their say, They the further i m p o s i t i o n of the are void because argue that any fee and were not drug-testing those rules e n a c t e d p u r s u a n t t o § 4 1 - 2 2 - 4 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975, of the Alabama AAPA"), codified at Finally, they argue t h a t fee i s an § Administrative 41-22-1 the excessive et imposition f i n e or I , § 15, A l a . C o n s t . Procedure seq., an a s s e s s e d i n v i o l a t i o n o f A l a . Code 1975, We plaintiffs and, portion testing not because, r u l e s a u t h o r i z i n g the the illegally. statute rules e n a c t o n l y r u l e s and are DOC of a Act ("the Ala. Code 1975. the $31.50 drug- excessive punishment § 14-3-52, and Art. 1901. b e g i n o u r a n a l y s i s by c o n s i d e r i n g t h e power g r a n t e d t o t h e d e p a r t m e n t i n A l a . Code 1975, and e x e r c i s [ e ] correctional § 14-1-1.2, t o "administer[] ... d i r e c t and e f f e c t i v e c o n t r o l o v e r p e n a l institutions throughout this state." and The d e p a r t m e n t i s "headed by and u n d e r t h e i n d e p e n d e n t d i r e c t i o n , supervision and control of a Commissioner 40 of Corrections." 2081084 Ala. Code 1975, § 14-1-1.3. department, according The f u n c t i o n s t o A l a . Code and d u t i e s o f t h e 1975, § 1 4 - 1 - 8 ( a ) ( 6 ) , 7 i n c l u d e " [ t ] o promulgate such r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s n e c e s s a r y to hygiene, s a n i t a t i o n , c l e a n l i n e s s , healthfulness, of prisoners, jails." management and security Thus, t h e d e p a r t m e n t , feeding of a l l prisons and t h r o u g h t h e commissioner, has direct s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y t o promulgate rules relating to, among other and correctional The things, promulgate management o f a m e d i c a l co-pay of designed t o reduce among i n m a t e s i s a v a l i d e x e r c i s e o f t h e power t o rules relating t o t h e management f a c i l i t i e s by t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r . the security institutions. imposition malingering the drug-testing fee appears Similarly, of c o r r e c t i o n a l the imposition of t o be a v a l i d exercise of the commissioner's duty t o promulgate r u l e s t o promote s e c u r i t y i n State penal i n s t i t u t i o n s . plaintiffs We t h e r e f o r e that the regulations cannot agree w i t h the regarding the medical co-pay A l t h o u g h § 14-1-8(a) r e f e r s s p e c i f i c a l l y t o t h e " b o a r d " o f c o r r e c t i o n s , i n 1983 t h e e n a c t m e n t o f A l a . Code 1975, § 14¬ 1-1.1, c r e a t e d t h e d e p a r t m e n t a n d v e s t e d i n i t a l l t h e d u t i e s and p o w e r s t h a t once h a d b e l o n g e d t o t h e b o a r d . 7 41 2081084 and the drug-testing fee were enacted without statutory authority. The the p l a i n t i f f s a l s o argue t h a t the r e g u l a t i o n s medical co-pay and the drug-testing fee regarding are invalid b e c a u s e t h e y were n o t e n a c t e d i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h § 4 1 - 2 2 - 4 ( b ) . Section 41-22-4(b) provides: "No a g e n c y r u l e , o r d e r , o r d e c i s i o n s h a l l be v a l i d o r e f f e c t i v e a g a i n s t any p e r s o n o r p a r t y n o r may i t be i n v o k e d by t h e a g e n c y f o r any p u r p o s e u n t i l i t has b e e n made a v a i l a b l e f o r p u b l i c i n s p e c t i o n and i n d e x e d as r e q u i r e d by t h i s s e c t i o n and t h e a g e n c y has g i v e n a l l n o t i c e r e q u i r e d by S e c t i o n 41-22-5." The p l a i n t i f f s argue i n g e n e r a l t h a t the r e g u l a t i o n s at issue were p r o m u l g a t e d w i t h o u t t h e r e q u i s i t e n o t i c e t o b o t h i n m a t e s and the public. However, the promulgation of r e l a t i n g to " [ t ] h e conduct of inmates of p u b l i c is specifically A l a . Code 1975, of e x c e p t e d from the definition § 4 1 - 2 2 - 3 ( 9 ) g . 1 . , and, thus, r u l e - m a k i n g o u t l i n e d i n § 4 1 - 2 2 - 4 ( b ) do r e g u l a t i o n s at issue Finally, we institutions" of "rule," the requirements not apply agree drug-testing with the plaintiffs fee i s an excessive p u n i s h m e n t a s s e s s e d i n v i o l a t i o n o f A r t . I , § 15, 52. The f e e has see to the that the here. cannot assessment of the regulations f i n e or or § a 14-3¬ as i t s p u r p o s e d e f r a y i n g t h e c o s t o f a s e c o n d 42 2081084 t e s t t o p r o v e an i n m a t e ' s use charged the The of i l l e g a l drugs. fee o n l y i f the t e s t confirms drug-testing regulation was fee for testing positive test, classification inmate, by which change serves the an outside can or maintain i m p o s i t i o n of confirm the a basis disciplinary purpose The to result. l a b o r a t o r y to form a inmate i s a positive promulgated security i n State c o r r e c t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s . a An of of action maintaining custody- against security c o n f i r m i n g i f an i n m a t e has v i o l a t e d §§ 13A-10-36 t h r o u g h Ala. Code 1975, any an by -38, which d e f i n e c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e s r e l a t i n g to the use o r p r o d u c t i o n o f i l l e g a l s u b s t a n c e s inside a correctional facility. unauthorized The d r u g - t e s t i n g fee i s not by law. B e c a u s e t h e p l a i n t i f f s make no a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e amount o f t h e drug-testing fee is excessive, we will not consider the argument f u r t h e r . Regarding we reach f e e s may the the laundry f e e s and same c o n c l u s i o n . be c o l l e c t e d by DOC We the transportation fees, have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t as c o s t s o f c o n f i n e m e n t . such Section 14-8-6 p e r m i t s t h e d e p a r t m e n t t o e n a c t r e g u l a t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e d i s b u r s e m e n t o f an i n m a t e ' s w o r k - r e l e a s e e a r n i n g s and a l s o p e r m i t s t h e d e p a r t m e n t t o " w i t h h o l d f r o m an i n m a t e ' s 43 earnings 2081084 the cost incident to the inmate's confinement as d e p a r t m e n t s h a l l deem a p p r o p r i a t e and r e a s o n a b l e . " added.) Thus, we conclude costs of confinement and that exceeding t h a t DOC (Emphasis impose such as i t deems " a p p r o p r i a t e and i t may deduct 40% the of may those inmate's fees up to work-release the fees f o r reasonable" an amount not earnings. The r e g u l a t i o n r e g a r d i n g the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n f e e s , l i k e the r e g u l a t i o n s at i s s u e here, t o comply w i t h t h e AAPA. See § i s not v o i d f o r f a i l u r e other 41-22-3(9)g.1. Conclusion For court's the reasons set forth judgment d e t e r m i n i n g above, t h a t the we affirm § costs 14-8-6 p r e c l u d e s DOC from we charging o f an inmates inmate, for the i n m a t e s i n c u r i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h work r e l e a s e once t h e 40% cap on c o s t s o f c o n f i n e m e n t was trial c o s t s o f work r e l e a s e are i n c l u d e d w i t h i n the c o s t s of the confinement that the has b e e n r e a c h e d , and t h a t a u t h o r i z e d t o c h a r g e c e r t a i n f e e s and t h e m e d i c a l r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t DOC withhold up to 40% of work-release r a t h e r than t h e i r gross e a r n i n g s . We DOC co-pay; i s authorized to inmates' net earnings d i s m i s s the appeal and t h e c r o s s - a p p e a l i n s o f a r as t h e y p u r p o r t t o be f r o m a j u d g m e n t 44 2081084 entered trial regarding court plaintiff to dismiss subject-matter Robinson, Robinson's a n d we instruct the complaint f o r lack of jurisdiction. APPLICATION FOR REHEARING OVERRULED; OPINION OF JUNE 18, 2010, WITHDRAWN; PART; REVERSED REMANDED. OPINION SUBSTITUTED; APPEAL IN PART; CROSS-APPEAL APPEAL DISMISSED AFFIRMED I N IN PART; AND AFFIRMED I N PART; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART; AND REMANDED. Moore, J . , c o n c u r s . B r y a n a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r s p e c i a l l y , Thompson, P.J., concurs with w r i t i n g , which Pittman, i n part and d i s s e n t s J., joins. 45 with writings. i n part, 2081084 BRYAN, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g specially. I j o i n Judge Thomas's s p e c i a l c o n c u r r e n c e . in my special c o n c u r r e n c e i n P e t t y v. A l l e n , June 25, 2010] am obligated legislature So. 3d to apply [§ , 14-8-6, [Ms. ( A l a . C i v . App. A l a . Code wrote i t , r e g a r d l e s s of whether As I w r o t e 2080875, 2010), " I 1975,] as the I agree w i t h i t . To do o t h e r w i s e w o u l d be t o s u b s t i t u t e my o p i n i o n f o r t h a t o f the legislature." 46 2081084 THOMAS, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g s p e c i a l l y . I agree prohibits that the department") the cap Alabama from in Ala. Department Code of 1975, § 14-8-6, corrections w i t h h o l d i n g more t h a n 40% of ("the an inmate's work-release earnings to d e f r a y c o s t s of confinement incurred by t h e d e p a r t m e n t . I do n o t b e l i e v e , as t h e d e f e n d a n t s in on oral argument interpretation of rehearing the in this legislatively case, imposed argued that our on the cap department's r i g h t to w i t h h o l d work-release earnings f o r the department's own the department use or from the inmate's a p p l i e s i n any way the inmate's t o t h o s e moneys t h a t e m p l o y e r may have work-release earnings pursuant to deduct to a child- s u p p o r t i n c o m e - w i t h h o l d i n g o r d e r , an o r d e r o f r e s t i t u t i o n , or another as o b l i g a t i o n of the inmate repayment of a state support d e d u c t e d t h r o u g h an i n c o m e - w i t h h o l d i n g o r d e r i s t o be deducted parties d i d not authorized inmate's employer, to explain withhold work-release p r o c e s s was lien. Arguably, such child by t h e i n m a t e ' s tax a r i s i n g by s t a t u t e , see A l a . Code 1975, by what and collect income, but p e r m i t t e d and statute 47 child they practiced. the § 30-3-61; the department was support a l l agreed Restitution, from an that the however, 2081084 may c l e a r l y be w i t h h e l d and c o l l e c t e d by t h e i n m a t e ' s or by the department, which would be an entity "in real c o n s t r u c t i v e p o s s e s s i o n , custody, or c o n t r o l " of the work-release earnings. department's benefit the inmate's different child from addition, w i t h h o l d and I believe collect or victim i t s right d e f r a y the c o s t s of confinement In The is separate t o w i t h h o l d moneys to that the responsibility an to u n d e r § 14-8-6. department's duty for child income-withholding to over As I u n d e r s t a n d support, d u t y t o w i t h h o l d f r o m an i n m a t e ' s pursuant and t h o s e o t h e r moneys t a k e s p r i o r i t y the inmate's the employer's amount inmate's § 15-18-144. i t s r i g h t t o d e f r a y the c o s t s of confinement. the law, or d u t y t o w i t h h o l d and c o l l e c t t h o s e moneys f o r t h e of distinctly See A l a . Code 1975, employer and e a r n i n g s an order for child s u p p o r t , has p r i o r i t y o v e r o t h e r g a r n i s h m e n t s o r o b l i g a t i o n s . Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3-67 (indicating that an income- w i t h h o l d i n g o r d e r f o r c h i l d s u p p o r t " s h a l l have p r i o r i t y any writ of garnishment or any other state a g a i n s t t h e same income o f t h e o b l i g o r " ) . victim's r i g h t to r e s t i t u t i o n the department's right legal I n my process opinion, should also take p r i o r i t y to withhold a portion 48 over o f an a over inmate's 2081084 work-release department restitution earnings. must deduct orders Thus, I am amounts before of due deducting e n t i t l e d t o w i t h h o l d from the inmate's 14-8-6. Bryan, J . , concurs. 49 the under the opinion that the c h i l d - s u p p o r t or 40% that i t is earnings pursuant to § 2081084 THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e , in concurring i n p a r t and dissenting part. I disagree w i t h the h o l d i n g i n the m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n § 14-8-6, A l a . Code 1975, c a p s t h e amount t h a t may be from a work-release inmate's earnings, "'whether withheld i t i s for c o s t s o f c o n f i n e m e n t , c o s t s o f work r e l e a s e , o r any o t h e r or expense.'" Section So. 3d a t (quoting t r i a l court's 14-8-6 p r o v i d e s that fee order). as f o l l o w s : "The e m p l o y e r o f an i n m a t e i n v o l v e d i n work r e l e a s e s h a l l p a y t h e i n m a t e ' s wages d i r e c t l y t o t h e Department of C o r r e c t i o n s . The d e p a r t m e n t may a d o p t regulations concerning the disbursement of any e a r n i n g s o f t h e i n m a t e s i n v o l v e d i n work r e l e a s e . The d e p a r t m e n t i s a u t h o r i z e d t o w i t h h o l d f r o m an inmate's earnings the cost i n c i d e n t to the inmate's c o n f i n e m e n t as t h e d e p a r t m e n t s h a l l deem a p p r o p r i a t e and r e a s o n a b l e . I n no e v e n t s h a l l t h e w i t h h e l d e a r n i n g s e x c e e d 40 p e r c e n t o f t h e e a r n i n g s o f t h e inmate. A f t e r a l l e x p e n s e s have b e e n d e d u c t e d by the department, the remainder of the inmate's e a r n i n g s s h a l l be c r e d i t e d t o h i s o r h e r a c c o u n t w i t h the department. Upon h i s o r h e r r e l e a s e a l l moneys b e i n g h e l d by t h e d e p a r t m e n t s h a l l be p a i d over to the inmate." (Emphasis As added.) the m a j o r i t y construction that C o u r t must f i r s t points "'[t]o look out, i t i s a rule determine of legislative t o the language of the statutory intent, statute. g i v i n g t h e s t a t u t o r y l a n g u a g e i t s p l a i n and o r d i n a r y the If, meaning, we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e l a n g u a g e i s u n a m b i g u o u s , t h e n t h e r e i s no 50 2081084 room f o r j u d i c i a l F l u k e r v. W o l f f , (Ala. 789, 794 construction.'" [Ms. So. 3d a t (quoting 1081708, M a r c h 19, 2010] 2010), c i t i n g So. 3d i n t u r n Ex p a r t e W a d d a i l , 827 (Ala. 2001)). , So. 2d Furthermore, "in i n t e r p r e t i n g a s t a t u t e , a court accepts an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e s t a t u t e by t h e agency charged w i t h i t s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , i f t h a t interpretation is reasonable. ... Absent a c o m p e l l i n g r e a s o n n o t t o do s o , a c o u r t w i l l g i v e g r e a t w e i g h t t o an a g e n c y ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f a s t a t u t e and w i l l c o n s i d e r them p e r s u a s i v e . " State v. Pettaway, 794 So. 2d 1153, 1157 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001). I b e l i e v e t h a t the m a j o r i t y ' s is too broad. I the do not absolute cap on earnings of work-release read i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f § 14-8-6 the amount t h a t may inmates, s e r v i c e s s u c h as t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and Department of those Corrections inmates Instead, earnings the taking exceed 40 ("the part sentence, statute for laundry no event services that the provide work-release shall earnings of confinement. 51 the the the the to program. withheld inmate," r e f e r s t o t h e amount t h a t can be w i t h h e l d t o d e f r a y t h e incident to an extraordinary d e p a r t m e n t " ) may the of placing c o l l e c t e d from even in "In percent be as costs 2081084 The u s u a l within a and o r d i n a r y location," or Collegiate Dictionary 261 a l s o been d e f i n e d imprisoned; work r e l e a s e to imprison. i s "to hold Merriam-Webster's ( 1 1 t h e d . 2 0 0 3 ) . " C o n f i n e m e n t " has as t h e " [ s ] t a t e o f b e i n g c o n f i n e d ; detention D i c t i o n a r y 298 meaning of " c o n f i n e " i n penal ( 6 t h ed. 1990). institution." shut i n ; Black's Law An i n m a t e who i s q u a l i f i e d f o r and who c h o o s e s t o t a k e p a r t i n t h e w o r k - r e l e a s e program i s not c o n f i n e d w i t h i n the penal i n s t i t u t i o n while he i s on t h e j o b . The d e p a r t m e n t p r o v i d e s r e l a t i v e l y inexpensive transportation f o r work-release from jobs; that however, transportation inmate's confinement. for laundry services inmates Similarly, f o r clothes t o and i s not the fees worn their incident to the an i n m a t e incurs on w o r k release, as opposed t o p r i s o n u n i f o r m s , are not i n c i d e n t t o confinement. The d e p a r t m e n t , out the State agency charged with § 14-8-6, has i n t e r p r e t e d t h e s t a t u t e t o a l l o w carrying collection o f up t o 40% o f a w o r k - r e l e a s e i n m a t e ' s e a r n i n g s t o d e f r a y t h e costs i n c i d e n t t o confinement. incurs costs f o r work release of confinement. may However, c o s t s t h a t an i n m a t e be a s s e s s e d i n addition to the The d e p a r t m e n t ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f § 14-8-6 i s r e a s o n a b l e , and I do n o t b e l i e v e t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s 52 2081084 provided a compelling interpretation. reason for this court to reject Indeed, a f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t judge a l s o the department's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the s t a t u t e . Allen, Case No. (unpublished), District 5:08-CV-0823-CLS-PWG t h e same c o n c l u s i o n . courts persuasive Although District authority. I n Ambers v . theUnited o f Alabama upon Ambers this dealt court, with On Deposit transportation case, ("PMOD") t o and from account States States they are whether d e p a r t m e n t p r o p e r l y w i t h d r e w money f r o m an i n m a t e ' s Money 2010) reached d e c i s i o n s o f the U n i t e d are not binding shares (N.D. A l a . r e l e a s e d on M a r c h 18, 2010, Court f o r the Northern district that the Prisoner to pay f o rh i s h i s work-release job. In that the d i s t r i c t c o u r t adopted the r e p o r t o f the magistrate judge, which found t h a t " [ m ] e d i c a l , t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , and court fees are not costs i n c i d e n t t o confinement, the living out o f h i s PMOD [ a c c o u n t ] rather they a r e expenses i n c u r r e d by t h e inmate h i m s e l f and p a i d when he a u t h o r i z e s t h e payment." P e o p l e who a r e n o t i n c a r c e r a t e d must p a y t h e i r own c o s t s f o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n t o a n d f r o m work. F u r t h e r , p e o p l e who a r e n o t i n c a r c e r a t e d p a y t h e i r own l a u n d r y b i l l s a n d b u y t h e i r own toiletries. Simply b e c a u s e one i s on work r e l e a s e d o e s n o t 53 2081084 p r e v e n t one from having work-release everyday working inmate goods as should and part t o pay not services of a the c o s t s of everyday l i f e . be exempt f r o m merely because work-release the he costs of she is or program. A Department Commissioner R i c h a r d A l l e n t e s t i f i e d t h a t p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the w o r k - r e l e a s e program i s v o l u n t a r y . t o pay f o r g o o d s and r e l e a s e , he For o r she s e r v i c e s he can inmate charging she uses w h i l e I b e l i e v e t h a t the trial and that inmates § c o s t of the 14-8-6 p r e c l u d e s for costs the the inmates on work program. court t h a t t h e c o s t o f work r e l e a s e o r any or expense i s i n c l u d e d w i t h i n the an or d e c l i n e to take p a r t i n the these reasons, in determining I f an i n m a t e does n o t w i s h erred other fee confinement department incur in of from connection w i t h work r e l e a s e once t h e 40% cap on c o s t s o f c o n f i n e m e n t has been r e a c h e d . the Therefore, judgment p l a c i n g an department I would reverse withhold may absolute cap from of an 40% t h a t p o r t i o n of on the inmate's amount the work-release earnings. Because I find that the department may collect t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and l a u n d r y c o s t s i n c u r r e d by an i n m a t e on work release over and above the 40% 54 cap on collecting costs 2081084 i n c i d e n t t o confinement, I a l s o disagree that the contract the inmate signs authorizing the department to withhold those costs i s void. The document a t i s s u e , a c o p y o f w h i c h was a t t a c h e d Commissioner evidence, abide Allen's deposition that was submitted b y i f he o r she w i s h e s t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e work- transportation a n d t h e amount department w i l l withhold confinement. option to defray o f p i c k i n g and c h o o s i n g inmates are agreeing take i n the department's An i n m a t e does n o t have t h e r u l e s o f t h e program I n s i g n i n g t h e agreement, t h e t o a b i d e by t h e r u l e s . the w o r k - r e l e a s e program i s v o l u n t a r y , like the the costs of the inmate's Those r u l e s a r e s e t f o r t h w i t h w h i c h he o r she a g r e e s . pay f o r of h i s or her earnings r e g u l a t i o n s ; they are not negotiable. not into s e t s f o r t h a t l e a s t some o f t h e r u l e s an i n m a t e must r e l e a s e p r o g r a m , i n c l u d i n g t h e amount he o r she w i l l the to Participation i n a n d i f an i n m a t e d o e s t h e p r o g r a m ' s r u l e s , he o r she i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o p a r t i n t h e program. For the reasons set forth above, I must r e s p e c t f u l l y d i s s e n t from t h o s e p o r t i o n s o f t h e main o p i n i o n h o l d i n g § 14-8-6 p r o v i d e s an a b s o l u t e that c a p on t h e amount o f money t h e 55 2081084 department i s authorized to withhold i n m a t e ' s e a r n i n g s and h o l d i n g inmates costs main sign from a work-release v o i d t h e document w o r k - r e l e a s e authorizing the department t o w i t h h o l d r e l a t e d t o work r e l e a s e . Otherwise, opinion. Pittman, J . , concurs. 56 I concur certain i n the

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.