Booker-El v. Superintendent, Indiana State Prison
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2549
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Booker-El, an inmate at Indiana State Prison, sues prison officials for misappropriating the inmates' recreation fund under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Indiana law creates an inmates' recreation fund funded from sources outside the state budget and controlled by the prison superintendent.
- § 4-24-6-6 directs funds be used for the direct benefit of inmates and not for purposes covered by state appropriations, with a nonexhaustive list of permissible expenditures.
- Booker-El alleges misappropriations over ten years, including diversions for personal use and for purposes already covered by state allocations (e.g., security equipment).
- The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim, holding Booker-El had no statutorily protected property interest; Booker-El appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Booker-El has standing to sue in federal court. | Booker-El has a colorable property interest in the fund. | No standing because no protected property interest. | Booker-El has standing (colorable property interest) to challenge the fund. |
| Whether Booker-El has a protected property interest in the inmates' recreation fund under Indiana law. | § 4-24-6-6 creates a mandatory obligation to spend the fund for inmates. | The statute merely preserves discretion to spend, not a guaranteed entitlement. | No protected property interest; discretion remains with officials and no guaranteed entitlement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arreola v. Godinez, 546 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2008) (distinguishes standing from merits; standing is separate from entitlement to relief)
- Bond v. Utreras, 585 F.3d 1061 (7th Cir. 2009) (standing requires a colorable claim, not final entitlement)
- Khan v. Bland, 630 F.3d 519 (7th Cir. 2010) (defines protected property interests and entitlement in due-process analysis)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (establishes injury-in-fact, causation, redressability for standing)
- Roth v. Board of Regents, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (protected property interest requires legitimate claim of entitlement)