Pleading standards. Prisoners’ rights; Equal Protection; Court reverses 12(b)(6) dismissal.

Nichols, Wool et al. v. Hofmann (2008-510) (30-Apr-2010) 2010 VT 36 (DOOLEY, J.)

Plaintiffs, prison inmates housed at the Lee Adjustment Center, a privately operated prison in Beattyville, Kentucky, appeal the dismissal of their petition for injunctive relief seeking both the right to use debit cards for telephone calls and the availability of free postage stamps. We reverse and remand.

“When an inmate requests and receives a list of parties approved to receive telephone calls, the inmate shall be provided the option of using a debit or collect call system to place such calls.” 8 V.S.A. § 802a(c), The plain language of the definition of “correctional facility” demonstrates that it encompasses out-of-state private prisons that house offenders under DOC custody. We conclude that plaintiffs have the statutory right to use debit cards for telephone calls when housed in an out-of-state private correctional facility.

Plaintiffs next contend that DOC’s refusal to provide them with free postage stamps violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause demands that states treat similarly situated people alike, unless they have a rational basis for treating them differently. Engquist v. Or. Dep’t of Agric., 553 U.S. 591, ___, 128 S. Ct. 2146, 2153 (2008); City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). The State concedes that it does not provide free stamps to plaintiffs, but contends that plaintiffs are not situated similarly to inmates housed in Vermont. The issue is whether the groups involved are similar in relevant aspects, that is “with respect to the purpose of the law in question.” We conclude that the fact plaintiffs are housed out of state , alone, does not show that plaintiffs are not situated similarly with in-state inmates for purposes of an entitlement to stamps. The state also claims it has a rational basis for any discrimination between in-state and out-of-state inmates. Each of these claims requires factual support, and DOC has provided none because it filed a motion to dismiss that cannot go outside the facts alleged by plaintiffs.

To maintain open access to the courts and to implement our preference for dispositions on the merits, courts should view Rule 12(b)(6) motions with disfavor and rarely grant them. Bock v. Gold, 2008 VT 81, ¶ 4, 184 Vt. 575, 959 A.2d 990 (mem.); Endres v. Endres, 2006 VT 108, ¶ 4, 180 Vt. 640, 912 A.2d 975 (mem.). A court should therefore grant a Rule 12(b)(6) motion only if “it is beyond doubt that there exist no facts or circumstances that would entitle the plaintiff to relief.” Richards v. Town of Norwich, 169 Vt. 44, 48, 726 A.2d 81, 85 (1999) (quotation omitted). The trial court acted prematurely in dismissing plaintiffs’ equal protection claim with respect to stamps.