A similar notice appeared in the prison newsletter.ĭuring August, RIDOC formally suspended those provisions of the Policy that addressed interest on inmate accounts. A few weeks later, RIDOC posted notices advising of this change in practice throughout the prison. As a result, the pooling arrangement was scrapped and, on June 1, 2002, RIDOC stopped paying interest. Comments from prospective vendors prompted RIDOC to reevaluate the feasibility of paying interest on inmate accounts. In 2001, RIDOC decided to outsource management of a wide swath of back-room systems. The Policy memorialized the practice of crediting interest, stipulating that interest on funds in inmate accounts would “accrue to the depositing inmates in an equitable fashion.” It is the putative right to the continued accrual of interest that is at the epicenter of this appeal. Any return on this investment was then allocated to individual inmate accounts based on average daily balances. In bygone days, the funds in the individual inmate accounts were pooled and invested. 1 Inmates get monthly statements detailing their transactions and confirming their account balances. There is a set procedure for transferring funds from inmate accounts for approved expenditures. Inmates also are prohibited from making cash withdrawals. 2.17 (the Policy), some uses are permitted (e.g., purchasing items at the prison commissary) and others are prohibited (e.g., purchasing proscribed merchandise). An inmate has the option of transferring any unencumbered funds to a commercial bank account.ĭespite the nomenclature, there are limits on what an inmate may do with the money in his available account. The balance of the inmate's earnings is deposited in what is known as an “available account.” That account may be supplemented through other sources (e. RIDOC places twenty-five percent of an inmate's earnings (up to a maximum of $1,000) into what is known as an “encumbered account.” This sum is retained until the inmate's release, at which time it is tendered to him. Their wages are deposited into inmate accounts maintained by the Rhode Island Department of Corrections (RIDOC).

By statute, Rhode Island authorizes inmates to pursue gainful, in-prison employment while incarcerated. Accordingly, the defendant was at liberty to abrogate the policy prospectively. Weighing in on an issue that has split the circuits, we conclude that prison inmates lack a constitutionally protected property right in interest not yet paid. This appeal requires us to determine whether a prison's unilateral suspension of its internal policy of paying interest on inmate accounts violated the constitutional rights of an affected inmate. Lynch, Attorney General, was on brief, for appellee. Palombo, Assistant Attorney General, with whom Patrick C. Patil and Nixon Peabody LLP were on brief, for appellant. Decided: April 14, 2011īefore BOUDIN, Circuit Judge, SOUTER,*Associate Justice, and SELYA, Circuit Judge.Īndrew B.

WALL, individually and in his capacity as the Director of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections, Defendant, Appellee.

United States Court of Appeals,First Circuit.Įdward Eugene YOUNG, Sr., Plaintiff, Appellant, v.

Ridoc pay