Ramirez v. Winter Blues Inc et al

Ramirez v. Winter Blues
No. 3:20-cv-00002-SLG-DMS
R&R re Mtn for Maintenance While in Jail 	1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ALASKA
MARCO RAMIREZ,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WINTER BLUES, INC., in personam;
THE F/V WINTER BLUES, OFFICIAL
NO. 612146, HER ENGINES,
MACHINERY, APPURTENANCES AND
CARGO, in rem,
Defendant.
No. 3:20-cv-00002-SLG-DMS
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION1 TO DENY
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
MAINTENANCE WHILE IN JAIL
[Dkt. 45]
I. 	INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Macro Ramirez seeks an award of $756.32 in back maintenance for the 16 days
he was in jail (Dkt. 45 at 1). Ramirez has been provided maintenance from defendant F/V Winter
Blues since his alleged injury, however, the defendant ceased payments while Ramirez was
incarcerated for 16 days (Dkt. 45 at 2). The defendant resumed payments after Ramirez was
released from jail. (Dkt. 45 at 2). Ramirez requests $756.32; this amounts to a per diem rate of
$47.27 per day for the 16 days (the $59.41 per diem rate determined by the Court, less the $12.14
food allowance) (Dkt. 45 at 2).
The defendant responded in opposition, asserting that Ramirez is not entitled to any per
diem while in jail, since Ramirez “did not actually incur expenses for room and board,” instead
room and board was provided to Ramirez at no cost (Dkt. 50 at 1).
1 This report and recommendation is being issued as a final report and recommendation. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636
(b)(1)(C), any objections will be considered by the District Court Judge who will accept, reject, or modify the
recommendation, or resubmit the matter to the Magistrate Judge for additional consideration and recommendations.
Case 3:20-cv-00002-SLG-DMS Document 55 Filed 05/07/21 Page 1 of 6

Ramirez v. Winter Blues
No. 3:20-cv-00002-SLG-DMS
R&R re Mtn for Maintenance While in Jail 	2
Ramirez replied to the defendant’s response, stating that his mortgage payments amount
to actual incurred expenses sufficient to trigger maintenance from the defendant to cover those
expenses, even if they were not incurred for his room and board during that time (Dkt. 52 at 1-2).
He asserts that “[a] seaman’s mortgage (or rent) is payable even during the seaman’s relatively
short stints in jail” (Dkt. 52 at 2).
For the following reasons, the Court recommends that the District Court DENY the
plaintiff’s motion.
II. 	BACKGROUND
On or around July 10, 2019, Ramirez allegedly suffered a knee injury while in the service
of fishing vessel Winter Blues and was unable to return to work (Dkt. 19-1 at 1). Ramirez filed a
claim for seaman’s benefits with Bristol Bay Reserve (Dkt. 21 at 1). Bristol Bay Reserve
appraised his daily maintenance payment at $53 (Dkt. 21-4). Ramirez brought this action to
dispute the daily maintenance payment amount to which he was entitled (Dkt. 1 at 3).
In dispute was Ramirez’s per diem allowance for housing. Ramirez’s actual monthly
mortgage costs are $1,204, however, the defense provided evidence that the average cost of
renting a two-bedroom apartment in Homer is between $1,139 and $1,148 per month (Dkt. 26 at
7, 9). Since Ramirez offered no proof that this figure was unreasonable, the Court found that
Ramirez was entitled to $1,148 per month for housing expenses (Dkt. 26 at 9). The Court found
that what Ramirez actually paid for his mortgage was not dispositive, since maintenance includes
costs actually incurred by a seaman for his lodging, up to a reasonable point, here, the average
monthly rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Homer (Dkt. 26 at 8-9).
On September 11, 2020, the District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, granting partial summary judgement on the per diem rate of maintenance
Case 3:20-cv-00002-SLG-DMS Document 55 Filed 05/07/21 Page 2 of 6

Ramirez v. Winter Blues
No. 3:20-cv-00002-SLG-DMS
R&R re Mtn for Maintenance While in Jail 	3
(Dkt. 29 at 1). Ramirez’s daily maintenance amount was set at $59.41 by the Court (Dkt. 29 at
2). This figure reflects the following: $370.30 per month for food costs, $1,148 per month for
housing, $117 per month for residential electricity, and $147 per month for natural gas (Dkt. 26
at 6, 9). This totals $1,782.30, which was then divided by 30 (the average number of days per
month) to reach a daily per diem amount of $59.41 (Dkt. 26 at 6).
III. APPLICABLE LAW
Seamen injured in the course of their employment are entitled maintenance and cure
benefits. Calmar S. S. Corp. v. Taylor, 303 U.S. 525, 527-28 (1938). “Maintenance and cure is
designed to provide a seaman with food and lodging when he becomes sick or injured in the
ship’s service.” Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527, 531 (1962). “The meaning of the phrase
‘maintenance and cure’ is plain. By the custom of the sea the hiring of sailors has for centuries
included food and lodging at the expense of the ship. This is their maintenance.” The Bouker No.
2, 241 F. 831, 835 (2d Cir. 1917).
“In keeping with its historical purpose, the duty to provide maintenance and cure extends
only as far as the seaman’s needs. Recovery by a seaman has therefore been limited to amounts
actually expended or liabilities actually incurred by him for his maintenance and cure.” Martinez
v. Star Fish & Oyster Co., 386 F. Supp. 560, 563 (S.D. Ala. 1974) (citing Calmar S. S. Corp.,
303 U.S. at 530; United States v. Johnson, 160 F.2d 789, 798 (9th Cir. 1947) aff’d in part, rev’d
in part, 333 U.S. 46, 50 (1948)). “[A]bsent any proof that the [seaman] actually paid anything for
maintenance or obligated himself to such payment, he is not entitled to recover.” Ballard v.
Alcoa S. S. Co., 122 F. Supp. 10, 11-12 (S.D. Al. 1954).
Because food and lodging is provided to a person without cost while they are
incarcerated, an injured seaman is not entitled to maintenance payments while in jail. Ballard,
Case 3:20-cv-00002-SLG-DMS Document 55 Filed 05/07/21 Page 3 of 6

Ramirez v. Winter Blues
No. 3:20-cv-00002-SLG-DMS
R&R re Mtn for Maintenance While in Jail 	4
122 F. Supp. at 12; Martinez, 386 F. Supp. at 563. This is true of other situations where a seaman
did not incur expenses for his maintenance. See Johnson, 160 F.2d at 798 (finding that no
maintenance was due when the seaman “failed to establish that he had incurred any expense or
obligation for necessary maintenance while he lived with his parents”); see also Williams v.
United States, 228 F.2d 129, 134 (4th Cir. 1955) (explaining “[t]he rule of maintenance is a
substitute for room and board, all of which has been provided” to an injured seaman who was
admitted to a public health hospital at no cost to him, and therefore he was not entitled to
maintenance); see also Marine Drilling, Inc. v. Landry, 302 F.2d 127, 128 (5th Cir. 1962)
(holding that a minor living at home at no expense was not entitled to maintenance since “one
who has not paid his own expenses, whether a minor living at the home of his parents or
otherwise, cannot recover maintenance and cure from the ship owner”).
IV. 	DISCUSSION
Ramirez concedes that during the 16 days he was incarcerated he did not have to pay for
food as it was provided to him, and therefore he is not entitled to the $12.14 per day for food
costs on those days. However, he asserts that even though his lodging was also provided during
that time, he is entitled to the portion of his per diem for lodging, $47.27 per day, because he still
had to pay his mortgage and utilities during those 16 days.
A seaman is “limited to amounts actually expended or liabilities actually incurred by him
for his maintenance.” Martinez, 386 F. Supp. at 563 (emphasis added). Ramirez contends that he
actually incurred costs on his mortgage and utilities while he was in jail, however, those costs
were not incurred for his maintenance, that was provided to him by the Homer Jail. Maintenance
is not a substitute for a seaman’s earnings; maintenance entitlements were created to substitute
for the loss of food and lodging that would have been supplied to a seaman while at sea. The
Case 3:20-cv-00002-SLG-DMS Document 55 Filed 05/07/21 Page 4 of 6

Ramirez v. Winter Blues
No. 3:20-cv-00002-SLG-DMS
R&R re Mtn for Maintenance While in Jail 	5
Bouker No. 2, 241 F. 831, 835 (2d Cir. 1917). Here, Ramirez would be paying his monthly
mortgage payments even if he was being provided lodging while at sea. Prior cases make
clear that a seaman is not entitled to maintenance while in jail. The fact that a seaman carries a
home mortgage does not create an additional entitlement beyond its historical limit: actual
expenses incurred for maintenance.
Ramirez asks the Court to “to take another look at [the] assumption . . . that maintenance
is not payable while a seaman is in jail,” stating that such assumption stems from the old
stereotype that seamen were “improvident and profligate, thoughtless about the circumstances of
living more than a single day in advance” (Dkt. 45 at 2). Ramirez asserts that modern-day
seamen are not like those early stereotypes; they have mortgages and utility bills (Dkt. 45 at 2).
However, these same assumptions have justified the liberal application of maintenance and cure
benefits provided to injured seamen, a system unique to any other profession. See Vaughan, 369
U.S. at 531 (citing Calmar S.S. Corp., 303 U.S. at 528) (explaining the reasons underlying
courts’ liberal application of maintenance and cure include “[t]he protection of seamen, who, as a
class, are poor, friendless and improvident”). Ramirez asks the Court to remove a limit on
maintenance and cure and allow him to receive maintenance to cover his mortgage and utility
payments while he was incarcerated because this limit stems from an outdated stereotype.
However, he still seeks to benefit from the unique entitlements of maintenance and cure
grounded in the same historical assumptions. The Court is not persuaded.
//
//
//
Case 3:20-cv-00002-SLG-DMS Document 55 Filed 05/07/21 Page 5 of 6

Ramirez v. Winter Blues
No. 3:20-cv-00002-SLG-DMS
R&R re Mtn for Maintenance While in Jail 	6
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends that the District Court DENY the
plaintiff’s Motion for Maintenance While in Jail at Docket 45.
DATED this 7th day of May, 2021 at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/Deborah M. Smith
CHIEF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:20-cv-00002-SLG-DMS Document 55 Filed 05/07/21 Page 6 of 6