×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Missouri Attaches Prisoner's Award Against CMS, 8th Cir Remands
On July 28, 2003, the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a district
court to reconsider whether the State of Missouri could confiscate a
prisoner's judgment against a prison medical provider under the state's
cost of incarceration statute.
Acting pro se, Edward Allen Moore, a Missouri state prisoner, was awarded
$9,800 in compensatory damages against Correctional Medical Services (CMS)
on August 7, 2001, for delaying dental care and mishandling his medical
service requests. The award was upheld on appeal. [See: Moore v. Jackson,
16 Fed.Appx. 517 (8th Cir. 2001) (unpublished)].
CMS deposited monies with the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Missouri to cover the judgment. Once deposited a state court attached
the judgment pursuant to the Missouri Incarceration Reimbursement Act
(MIRA), Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 217.827(1)(b) and 217.833 (2000), which allows
the state to confiscate up to 90% of a prisoner's assets, "including a
money judgment from the State as a result of a civil action against 'the
state, an agency thereof or any state employee or independent contractor
... arising from the conduct of official duties on behalf of the state.'"
Moore moved to enforce the judgment against CMS, a state contractor, in
November 2001. The district court denied his motion without explanation,
and Moore, still representing himself, appealed.
The 8th Circuit remanded the case to the district court for reconsideration
in light of its previous holding in Hankins v. Finnel, 964 F.2d 853 (8th
Cir. 1992). In Hankins the appellate court held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983
preempted the MIRA "to the extent that [MIRA] permits the State to recoup
the very monies it has paid to satisfy a section 1983 judgment against one
of its employees." The Hankins Court further reasoned that to allow the
State to largely recoup such an award would be contrary to the goals of the
federal statute because "'neither the State nor its employees would have
the incentive to comply with federal and constitutional rights of prisoners.'"
Because the district court denied Moore's motion without explanation, the
8th Circuit remanded the case with instructions to consider whether the
reasoning of Hankins extended to Moore's case. See: Moore v. Jackson, 70
Fed.Appx. 401 (8th Cir. 2003) (unpublished).
court to reconsider whether the State of Missouri could confiscate a
prisoner's judgment against a prison medical provider under the state's
cost of incarceration statute.
Acting pro se, Edward Allen Moore, a Missouri state prisoner, was awarded
$9,800 in compensatory damages against Correctional Medical Services (CMS)
on August 7, 2001, for delaying dental care and mishandling his medical
service requests. The award was upheld on appeal. [See: Moore v. Jackson,
16 Fed.Appx. 517 (8th Cir. 2001) (unpublished)].
CMS deposited monies with the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Missouri to cover the judgment. Once deposited a state court attached
the judgment pursuant to the Missouri Incarceration Reimbursement Act
(MIRA), Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 217.827(1)(b) and 217.833 (2000), which allows
the state to confiscate up to 90% of a prisoner's assets, "including a
money judgment from the State as a result of a civil action against 'the
state, an agency thereof or any state employee or independent contractor
... arising from the conduct of official duties on behalf of the state.'"
Moore moved to enforce the judgment against CMS, a state contractor, in
November 2001. The district court denied his motion without explanation,
and Moore, still representing himself, appealed.
The 8th Circuit remanded the case to the district court for reconsideration
in light of its previous holding in Hankins v. Finnel, 964 F.2d 853 (8th
Cir. 1992). In Hankins the appellate court held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983
preempted the MIRA "to the extent that [MIRA] permits the State to recoup
the very monies it has paid to satisfy a section 1983 judgment against one
of its employees." The Hankins Court further reasoned that to allow the
State to largely recoup such an award would be contrary to the goals of the
federal statute because "'neither the State nor its employees would have
the incentive to comply with federal and constitutional rights of prisoners.'"
Because the district court denied Moore's motion without explanation, the
8th Circuit remanded the case with instructions to consider whether the
reasoning of Hankins extended to Moore's case. See: Moore v. Jackson, 70
Fed.Appx. 401 (8th Cir. 2003) (unpublished).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Moore v. Jackson
| Year | 2003 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 70 Fed.Appx. 401 (8th Cir. 2003) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 9800 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
Edward Allen Moore, Appellant, v. Ernest Jackson, D.D.S., Defendant, James Keith, M.D., Appellee, Randee Kaiser; Karen Cornell, Defendants, Ralf Salke, Appellee, Gerald Bommel; Steve Long; John Sydow; Judy P. Draper; Dora Schriro, Defendants, William Wade, M.D.; Richard Washington, Appellees, David Dormire; Michael Groose; ARA Services, doing business as Correctional Medical Systems, Defendants.
No. 02-2739
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
70 Fed. Appx. 401; 2003 U.S. App.
July 10, 2003, Submitted
July 28, 2003, Filed
NOTICE: [**1] RULES OF THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Subsequent appeal at Moore v. Jackson, 2004 U.S. App. (8th Cir. Mo., Oct. 14, 2004)
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Moore v. Jackson, 16 Fed. Appx. 517, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 17629 (2001)
DISPOSITION: Remanded; appellant's motions denied.
COUNSEL: Edward Allen Moore, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Bowling Green, MO.
For Ernest Jackson, D.D.S, James Keith, M.D., Ralf Salke, William Wade, M.D., Defendants - Appellees: John Joseph Treu, CORECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, Jefferson City, MO.
JUDGES: Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
OPINION: [*402] PER CURIAM.
Edward Moore successfully sued ARA Services, dba Correctional Medical Services (CMS), in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to Moore's serious dental need, and a jury awarded him $ 9,800 in compensatory damages. In August 2001, we affirmed the jury verdict for Moore against CMS. See Moore v. Ernest-Jackson, 16 Fed. Appx. 517 (8th Cir. 2001) (unpublished per curiam), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1023, 152 L. Ed. 2d 630, 122 S. Ct. 1618 (2002). CMS then deposited monies with the district court to satisfy the judgment.
In November 2001 Moore moved to enforce the judgment. Moore stated that in October 2001 the State of Missouri filed an action in state court seeking reimbursement of the costs of Moore's incarceration under the Missouri Incarceration Reimbursement Act (MIRA). MIRA authorizes use, for reimbursement, of 90% [**2] of prisoner "assets," including a money judgment from the State as a result of a civil action against "the state, an agency thereof or any state employee or independent contractor . . . arising from the conduct of official duties on behalf of the state." See Mo. Rev. Stat. § § 217.827(1)(b) and 217.833 (2000). Moore asked the district court to enjoin the State from attaching the money CMS had deposited with the court, arguing that the State was prohibited from doing so under our decision in Hankins v. Finnel, 964 F.2d 853 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1013, 121 L. Ed. 2d 566, 113 S. Ct. 635 (1992).
Without explanation, the district court denied Moore's motion to enforce. On appeal, Moore adds that the state court has attached his judgment against CMS pursuant to MIRA.
In Hankins, the Missouri inmate plaintiff obtained a damage award in his section 1983 action against a state prison employee. The State assumed obligation for paying the judgment against the employee, but initiated state court proceedings to collect, under MIRA, 90% of the amount it was to pay Hankins as a result of the judgment. Hankins then returned to district court to proceed in aid of execution on the [**3] judgment. The district court determined that it had authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 to enforce its judgment and conduct proceedings in aid of execution and could retain ancillary jurisdiction over the State's reimbursement claim because it was adequately related to Hankins's original action. The court concluded that, as applied in Hankins's case, MIRA was invalid under the Supremacy Clause because the statute thwarted the objective of section 1983. The district court thus enjoined the State from attaching funds the State had paid Hankins. See Hankins, 964 F.2d at 854-55, 859. On appeal, we agreed that section 1983 preempted MIRA "to the extent that [*403] [MIRA] permits the State to recoup the very monies it has paid to satisfy a section 1983 judgment against one of its employees." We reasoned, "To allow the State to largely recoup this award would be inimical to the goals of the federal statute. As the district court observed, 'neither the State nor its employees would have the incentive to comply with federal and constitutional rights of prisoners.'" See id. at 861.
The district court's summary denial of Moore's motion to enforce gives [**4] us no guidance as to whether the court considered our decision in Hankins to be controlling. Accordingly, we remand to the district court to consider whether the reasoning of Hankins extends to a case such as this, where CMS, a state contractor performing the State's duty of providing medical services to state prisoners, pays a section 1983 judgment to a prisoner, and the State then seeks to collect from the judgment under MIRA. Upon completing its review, the district court shall enter a judgment consistent with its determination regarding the applicability of the holding in Hankins to the circumstances of Moore's case. We deny Moore's pending motions on appeal.
No. 02-2739
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
70 Fed. Appx. 401; 2003 U.S. App.
July 10, 2003, Submitted
July 28, 2003, Filed
NOTICE: [**1] RULES OF THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Subsequent appeal at Moore v. Jackson, 2004 U.S. App. (8th Cir. Mo., Oct. 14, 2004)
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Moore v. Jackson, 16 Fed. Appx. 517, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 17629 (2001)
DISPOSITION: Remanded; appellant's motions denied.
COUNSEL: Edward Allen Moore, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Bowling Green, MO.
For Ernest Jackson, D.D.S, James Keith, M.D., Ralf Salke, William Wade, M.D., Defendants - Appellees: John Joseph Treu, CORECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, Jefferson City, MO.
JUDGES: Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
OPINION: [*402] PER CURIAM.
Edward Moore successfully sued ARA Services, dba Correctional Medical Services (CMS), in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to Moore's serious dental need, and a jury awarded him $ 9,800 in compensatory damages. In August 2001, we affirmed the jury verdict for Moore against CMS. See Moore v. Ernest-Jackson, 16 Fed. Appx. 517 (8th Cir. 2001) (unpublished per curiam), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1023, 152 L. Ed. 2d 630, 122 S. Ct. 1618 (2002). CMS then deposited monies with the district court to satisfy the judgment.
In November 2001 Moore moved to enforce the judgment. Moore stated that in October 2001 the State of Missouri filed an action in state court seeking reimbursement of the costs of Moore's incarceration under the Missouri Incarceration Reimbursement Act (MIRA). MIRA authorizes use, for reimbursement, of 90% [**2] of prisoner "assets," including a money judgment from the State as a result of a civil action against "the state, an agency thereof or any state employee or independent contractor . . . arising from the conduct of official duties on behalf of the state." See Mo. Rev. Stat. § § 217.827(1)(b) and 217.833 (2000). Moore asked the district court to enjoin the State from attaching the money CMS had deposited with the court, arguing that the State was prohibited from doing so under our decision in Hankins v. Finnel, 964 F.2d 853 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1013, 121 L. Ed. 2d 566, 113 S. Ct. 635 (1992).
Without explanation, the district court denied Moore's motion to enforce. On appeal, Moore adds that the state court has attached his judgment against CMS pursuant to MIRA.
In Hankins, the Missouri inmate plaintiff obtained a damage award in his section 1983 action against a state prison employee. The State assumed obligation for paying the judgment against the employee, but initiated state court proceedings to collect, under MIRA, 90% of the amount it was to pay Hankins as a result of the judgment. Hankins then returned to district court to proceed in aid of execution on the [**3] judgment. The district court determined that it had authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 to enforce its judgment and conduct proceedings in aid of execution and could retain ancillary jurisdiction over the State's reimbursement claim because it was adequately related to Hankins's original action. The court concluded that, as applied in Hankins's case, MIRA was invalid under the Supremacy Clause because the statute thwarted the objective of section 1983. The district court thus enjoined the State from attaching funds the State had paid Hankins. See Hankins, 964 F.2d at 854-55, 859. On appeal, we agreed that section 1983 preempted MIRA "to the extent that [*403] [MIRA] permits the State to recoup the very monies it has paid to satisfy a section 1983 judgment against one of its employees." We reasoned, "To allow the State to largely recoup this award would be inimical to the goals of the federal statute. As the district court observed, 'neither the State nor its employees would have the incentive to comply with federal and constitutional rights of prisoners.'" See id. at 861.
The district court's summary denial of Moore's motion to enforce gives [**4] us no guidance as to whether the court considered our decision in Hankins to be controlling. Accordingly, we remand to the district court to consider whether the reasoning of Hankins extends to a case such as this, where CMS, a state contractor performing the State's duty of providing medical services to state prisoners, pays a section 1983 judgment to a prisoner, and the State then seeks to collect from the judgment under MIRA. Upon completing its review, the district court shall enter a judgment consistent with its determination regarding the applicability of the holding in Hankins to the circumstances of Moore's case. We deny Moore's pending motions on appeal.