Summary 2010 WY 52

Summary of Decision issued April 26, 2010

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

Case Name: Cosco v. Lampert

Citation: 2010 WY 52

Docket Number: S-09-0106

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, Honorable Michael K. Davis, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff): Louis D. Cosco, Pro se.

Representing Appellee (Defendant): Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; and John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General.

Facts: Appellant’s claims allege that, while he was an inmate under the supervision and control of the DOC, at the Wyoming State Penitentiary (WSP), he was wrongfully deprived of property. The district court dismissed both of Appellant’s claims with prejudice. The district court reasoned that there was no waiver of governmental immunity that would make relief available. Moreover, even if such a waiver existed, Appellant had failed to timely file a governmental claim with the proper State entity, as prescribed by the governing statutes.

Issues: Whether Appellant properly filed a governmental claim as required by the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act (WGCA). Whether the WGCA includes a waiver of immunity that makes Appellant’s claim(s) actionable. Whether the lack of a remedy under Wyoming law for Appellant’s claims violate either the Wyoming or United States constitutions.

Holdings: In Wyoming, no suit may be maintained against the State unless the legislature has authorized such a suit. Wyo. Stat. 1-39-101 through 121 (2009). The WGCA does not provide an exception to the rule of immunity for the claims pressed by Appellant. Furthermore, Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the claims he did file met the stringent requirements of the WGCA. Appellant has brought his claims against the State of Wyoming generally, the DOC, and two former and present employees of the DOC/WSP. However, he has failed to establish that the WGCA has waived immunity for any of those claims. Appellant’s claims, as articulated in his detailed pleadings, are not cognizable under any of the exceptions to the rule of immunity. Furthermore, the procedural requirements set out in the WGCA are construed very strictly and as jurisdictional requirements. None of Appellant’s claims were filed within the time periods prescribed in Wyo. Stat. 1-39-113(a). Thus, the district court was correct in granting summary judgment in favor of the State as to all of his claims. Moreover, the WGCA does not provide a waiver of immunity for the DOC’s conduct at issue here, even if the filings had otherwise met the statutory requirements.
Appellant asserts that he has been denied “due process of law” and “equal protection of the law,” and that as a general matter his “rights” of every kind and description have been trampled upon. Appellant raised these issues through the grievance process available to him under the rules and regulations which govern Wyoming’s penal institutions. The grievances Appellant filed were addressed by the warden of the WSP and/or the DOC in a timely and courteous manner. These internal procedures are the sort of rules and regulations contemplated by § 25-1-105 and the final result of an inmate grievance is not a matter that may be appealed to the courts. Appellant has aired his contentions of wrong-doing by WSP and DOC personnel in both the state and federal courts. It is clear that Appellant has been provided due process of law. Many, if not most of his issues, have been answered substantively. Those few issues that were not substantively addressed are deemed by the law to have been resolved (even though dismissed or otherwise not addressed on their merits), because Appellant had a full and complete opportunity to bring them before the courts, but he failed to adhere to mandatory procedural rules in doing so.
Appellant contends he has been denied equal protection of the law because the legislature did not include the DOC and the WSP within the waiver of the rule of immunity. To satisfy the first element of an equal protection challenge, a claimant must identify a classification of persons explicitly contained within a given piece of legislation. The WGCA does not differentiate between inmates and non-inmates. The WGCA simply enumerates certain tortious conduct for which the State waives the generally applicable rule of immunity. There is no attempt to distinguish between classes of individuals; the WGCA identifies causes of action which are actionable and those not enumerated remain in the category where immunity prevails. There is also a legitimate legislative objective since the purpose of the WGCA is to conserve public funds and yet preserve a fair and viable system of compensating persons injured by governmental actions. Further, the legislative classification is reasonably related to the achievement of the appropriate legislative purpose. Appellant’s claims arise in a setting where the sort of property loss/destruction at issue here is unpredictable, and further it is often virtually impossible to ascertain a reasonable value. For instance, here Appellant seeks tens of millions of dollars in compensation for more than a thousand separate pieces of property. Excluding such losses from the beneficent purposes of the WGCA is rational and readily withstands the equal protection provisions of both the United States and the Wyoming constitutions.
Freedom of religion is a fundamental right. However, the religious practices of inmates may be limited. The Court declined to address Appellant’s assertions that his religious liberties have been violated by the DOC and the WSP. Those assertions were supported by the barest of allegations that articles he claimed to be of religious significance to him were intentionally destroyed, misplaced, or lost by the WSP and DOC. His pleadings contain no averments that he has, because of these circumstances, been deprived of the right to otherwise freely pursue his religious beliefs, or that the destruction, misplacement, or loss of the religious articles at issue was designed to frustrate his right to freely practice his religion, within the limitations rightfully imposed by the DOC and WSP for the safety and security of DOC staff and other inmates in the charge of the DOC.
Appellant contends that the governing statutes and policies of the State deprive him of any sort of meaningful remedy and that, therefore, this Court must create a remedy for his peculiar circumstances. To the extent that this Court may have the authority to fashion a legal or equitable remedy to aid in the resolution of the circumstances set out in Appellant’s pleadings, it declined to do so.

The district court’s order which is the subject of this appeal is affirmed in all respects. In order that the contentions advanced by Appellant in these proceedings, as well as in other proceedings cited herein, be brought to finality, Appellant shall be prohibited from filing any further litigation relating to the subject matter of this case in any court of the State of Wyoming without first having obtained leave of the Court to do so.

Affirmed.

J. Hill delivered the opinion for the court.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2e3u2ef .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance using the Universal Citation format, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summary 2007 WY 159

Summary of Decision issued October 10, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation" and was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will note that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion should include the reporter page number. If you need assistance, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Merchant v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 159

Docket Number: 06-278

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Nicholas G. Kalokathis, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff): Robert T. Moxley of Robert T. Moxley, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellees (Defendants): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Daniel M. Fetsco, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Issues: Whether the district court and the Wyoming Department of Corrections (WDOC) properly interpreted Appellant’s sentences. Whether the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) required that Appellant be returned to Colorado without processing into the WDOC. Whether Appellant was denied equal protection of law because he was not processed into the WDOC before his return to Colorado.

Facts/Discussion: The criminal matter forming the basis for this case was considered by the Court in Merchant v. State. Appellant was serving a prison sentence in Colorado in 1996 and was temporarily transferred to Wyoming pursuant to the IAD to stand trial on several outstanding Wyoming criminal charges. After a jury returned a guilty verdict on eleven counts, the district court consolidated the sentences. He was then returned to Colorado after the sentencing hearing and was not processed into the Wyoming correctional system. In 2003, Colorado paroled Appellant and he was transferred to the Wyoming State Penitentiary. The WDOC determined he was entitled to credit for the time he served in Colorado against his Wyoming sentences in successive order but was not entitled to “special good time”. Appellant filed an action in the district court challenging WDOC’s determination that his Colorado time should be credited against only one of his Wyoming sentences at a time and refusing to give him special good time credit or calendar him for parole while he was incarcerated in Colorado. The district court entered a Stipulated Judgment incorporating a prior summary judgment ruling in favor of the State. Although he had already been paroled in Wyoming, the district court held a bench trial on his claim that his equal protection rights had been violated because he was not tracked for special good time or calendared for parole while incarcerated in Colorado.
Standard of Review: The Court reviews the district court’s decision to grant a summary judgment de novo. After a bench trial the Court reviews the trial court’s conclusions of law de novo. The trial court’s findings are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.
Consecutive or Concurrent Sentences: The Court concluded the district court correctly interpreted Appellant’s sentences. The sentencing court has discretion in determining whether the sentences will be served consecutively or concurrently. Applying the Colorado time concurrently with one Wyoming sentence at a time gives effect to both the concurrent and consecutive nature of Appellant’s Wyoming sentences. If the Court were to determine that Appellant’s Wyoming sentences were unclear or ambiguous, precedent (Pearson v. State) would require them to construe them as consecutive.
IAD Interpretation and Equal Protection Issues: Appellant argues the State treated him differently than other similarly situated inmates in violation of his constitutional right to equal protection of the law. Because Appellant has been paroled, the relief he requested is no longer necessary rendering his constitutional issue moot. The Court stated they recognize exceptions to the general rule that they dismiss moot controversies when it is an issue of great public importance. They agreed there was significant potential for the controversy to arise again and affect other Wyoming prisoners. Testimony at trial indicated that inmates brought to Wyoming pursuant to the IAD are not under the province of the WDOC. IAD inmates are not processed into the Wyoming correctional system to be tracked or calendared prior to being returned to the sending state. The clear language of Article V of the IAD established that the scope of the receiving state’s custody has been carefully limited and designed to be temporary in nature. Appellant’s argument would not serve the clear purposes of the IAD. Thus the Court concluded the State properly interpreted and applied the provisions of the IAD when it returned him without processing him into the Wyoming correctional system. Appellant was not similarly situated to other Wyoming inmates who were processed by the WDOC and then housed out of state and therefore was not entitled to be treated equally to Wyoming inmates.
The Court applied the rational basis test for determining Appellant’s equal protection claim because he did not allege he was a member of a suspect class nor did his claim involve a fundamental right. The district court ruled there was a rational basis for treating Appellant differently based on the trial evidence. The Court agreed the State’s actions were rationally related to legitimate state objectives. The Court distinguished In re Salinas and stated that Van Winkle v. New Jersey Dep’t of Corrections wasn’t applicable to the instant case.

Holding: The Court affirmed the district court’s ruling that Appellant’s Wyoming sentences were consecutive to one another and he was only entitled to credit for his Colorado incarceration against one Wyoming sentence at a time. The Court also concluded that Appellant’s equal protection rights were not violated when the State refused to give him the opportunity to earn “special good time” credit against the minimum terms of his Wyoming sentences or calendar him for parole while he was incarcerated in Colorado.

Affirmed.

J. Kite delivered the opinion.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2kruq8 .