AGO 2005-061.

• Case Date: January 31, 2005
• Court: Alabama

Alabama Attorney General Opinions 2005. AGO 2005-061. 2005-061January 31, 2005Honorable William C. SegrestExecutive Director Board of Pardons and Paroles Post Office Box 302405 Montgomery, AL 36130-2405 Pardons and Paroles - Indigents - Medicine The Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles may purchase medications for indigent "transition center" residents.Dear Mr. Segrest: This opinion of the Attorney General is issued in response to your request on behalf of the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles. QUESTION May the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles ("Board") purchase medications for indigent "transition center" residents? FACTS AND ANALYSIS Your request states that the Board operates a "transition center" for parolees and probationers who are deemed to require a structured transition from prison to the community. You further state that they live at the center and attend classes and participate in programs designed to facilitate their transition before they are transferred to community supervision. They are not employed while there. This Office understands that the center operates as a community residential facility under section 15-22-30 of the Code of Alabama. Ala. Code § 15-22-30 (1995). That statute and the other Board statutes are silent regarding the Board's authority to provide medical treatment to residents. In contrast, the Alabama Department of Corrections has a statutory obligation to provide medical treatment to inmates. This Office has explained that "[t]he Department is charged with the care and custody of prison inmates . . . and with the responsibility of providing for inmate health needs. Code of Alabama 1975, § 14-1-8(a)(1,6)." Opinion to Honorable Freddie V. Smith, Commissioner, Department of Corrections, dated August 19, 1985, A.G. No. 85-00470 at 1-2. In addition, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has recognized the inmate's constitutional right to medical treatment. Perry v. State Dep't of Corrections, 694 So. 2d 24 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997), citingEstelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976). The United States Supreme Court has not extended Estelle to the parole or probation setting. Research reveals only one case that has done so, albeit indirectly. In Jones v. Moore, 986 F.2d 251 (8th Cir. 1993), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit considered a discrimination claim by a parolee...