Johnson v. King
| Docket Number: | 2011-CP-00199-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-27-2012 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Reversed and rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Property rights of inmates - Takings Clause - Just compensation Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Barnes, Ishee, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Irving, P.J., concurs in part and in the result without separate written opinion Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-12-2011 Appealed from: Greene County Circuit Court Judge: Robert P. Krebs Disposition: AFFIRMED THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY PROGRAM’S DEC ISION DENYING JOHNSON A REPLACEMENT OR REIMBUREMENT FOR A CONFISCATED DRINKING MUG Case Number: 2010-211(1) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Zachary Johnson a/k/a Zack Johnson |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | Ronald King, Superintendent of South Mississippi Correctional Institution | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: R. STEWART SMITH JR., JAMES M. NORRIS |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Property rights of inmates - Takings Clause - Just compensation |
| Summary of the Facts: | The South Mississippi Correctional Institution confiscated all inmates’ 16-ounce opaque drinking mugs, including one belonging to inmate Zachary Johnson. The decision was based on prison officials finding multiple inmates, other than Johnson, had altered the drinking mugs to conceal cell phones, cell phone parts, or drugs. The drinking mugs were deemed a security risk, classified as contraband, and confiscated from all SMCI inmates. Johnson submitted a request for administrative remedy through the Mississippi Department of Corrections’ Administrative Remedy Program. Johnson requested he be reimbursed for the cost of his confiscated drinking mug or be provided a comparable clear drinking mug. His request was twice denied. After exhausting his administrative remedies and receiving notification that he was eligible for judicial review, Johnson filed a complaint in circuit court alleging a constitutional violation. The State filed a motion to dismiss. The circuit court affirmed the ARP’s decision denying Johnson’s request for a replacement drinking mug or reimbursement for the cost of the drinking mug. Johnson appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The United States Constitution and the Mississippi Constitution provide certain rights and privileges to the citizens of Mississippi and limit the right of the government to encroach on these rights. It is elemental that these rights and privileges are afforded to every citizen; however, circumstances exist where these rights may be restricted. Inmates lawfully confined in a prison facility have many of their constitutional rights restricted or removed altogether; however, some of their constitutional rights remain fully intact while imprisoned. Inmates must be accorded the constitutional rights that are not fundamentally inconsistent with imprisonment itself or incompatible with the objectives of incarceration. At issue in the current case is whether the MDOC and SMCI can permanently deprive Johnson of his opaque, drinking mug without just compensation. An inmate’s rights under the Takings Clause of the Constitution are not abated upon imprisonment. The SMCI canteen sold Johnson his drinking mug. Johnson bought his drinking mug, using his own money from his inmate account, and at the time of purchase, the drinking mug was an authorized piece of personal property for an inmate to possess. Further, and important to note, the record does not contain any allegation that Johnson was using his drinking mug for any prohibited purpose. The MDOC and SMCI did offer Johnson the opportunity to mail his drinking mug to his home at his own expense as an alternative; however, due to the life sentence he is serving, the confiscation of his drinking mug, even if shipped home, results in a permanent deprivation of his possessory rights. Johnson is entitled to just compensation based on the MDOC and SMCI’s deprivation of his possessory right to his drinking mug. The MDOC or SMCI shall either provide Johnson a translucent, 16-ounce, drinking mug comparable to the one seized or restore the funds to Johnson’s inmate account for the amount of the confiscated, drinking mug Johnson had originally purchased. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
