Clark v. Wilson
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23939
| 10th Cir. | 2010Background
- Clark, an Oklahoma state prisoner, was subject to garnishment of his prison trust account in June 2007 after a $2 million judgment against him.
- Garnishment documents were served on the Oklahoma Department of Corrections and forwarded to a prison official, Wilson, who froze Clark’s account to comply with the summons and statutes.
- Clark was notified of the freeze and filed a §1983 action asserting denial of access to the courts, retaliation, and due process claims.
- The district court denied Wilson’s summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity, adopting magistrate recommendations that Clark had potentially a due process claim.
- The magistrate suggested Clark might have had a predeprivation hearing entitlement under Gillihan v. Shillinger, but Sandin v. Conner later transformed due process analysis.
- The panel ultimately concluded Wilson was entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established right to a predeprivation hearing existed in 2007 under controlling law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clark had a clearly established right to a predeprivation hearing in 2007 | Clark argues Gillihan protected a funds interest | Wilson contends Sandin negates Gillihan; no clearly established right | No clearly established right in 2007; qualified immunity applies |
| Whether Gillihan remains good law after Sandin | Gillihan supports property interest in funds | Sandin abrogates Hewitt framework; Gillihan not clearly established | Gillihan abrogated by Sandin for this context; not clearly established in 2007 |
| Whether district court erred in applying Gillihan/Sandin to deny qualified immunity | District court erred in not recognizing lack of clearly established law | Qualified immunity should be granted due to lack of clearly established law | Reversed; Wilson entitled to qualified immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Gillihan v. Shillinger, 872 F.2d 935 (10th Cir. 1989) (prison funds as protected property interest under Hewitt framework criticized post-Sandin)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (overruled Hewitt approach; focus on atypical and significant hardship)
- Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (1983) (created mandatory-language approach for property interests (now superseded))
- Cosco v. Uphoff, 195 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 1999) (applies Hewitt methodology to interpret property interests)
- Steffey v. Orman, 461 F.3d 1218 (10th Cir. 2006) ( Sandin analysis applied beyond prison conditions)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (general rule allowing clearly established rights to apply despite no prior identical fact pattern)
- Burns v. PA Department of Correction, 544 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 2008) (courts’ treatment of protected property interests post-hoc; post-decision relevance)