Joseph Sorrentino v. Salvador Godinez, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1060

Background

Plaintiffs Joseph Sorrentino and Labron C. Neal are Illinois inmates who purchased commissary items (fans and a typewriter). They signed personal property contracts at purchase.
In July 2012 Stateville changed its property rules: limited fans to one per cell and banned typewriters in cells. The prison offered options (storage, shipping, donation, destruction) for disallowed items.
Prison officials removed the plaintiffs’ extra fans and Sorrentino’s typewriter (the fans are in storage; the typewriter was donated to the prison library). Plaintiffs sued in federal court seeking damages and injunctive/declaratory relief for alleged Takings and breach of contract.
The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), concluding Eleventh Amendment immunity barred damages and that plaintiffs failed to state Takings or breach-of-contract claims. Plaintiffs abandoned some claims on appeal.
The Seventh Circuit affirms dismissal of the Takings and breach-of-contract claims but holds the dismissals should have been without prejudice so plaintiffs may pursue appropriate Illinois forums.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the confiscation is a ripe Takings Clause claim in federal court	Sorrentino: taking occurred; federal relief appropriate without first using Illinois remedies; state remedies are futile	Godinez: federal Takings claim is unripe under Williamson because plaintiffs did not seek just compensation in Illinois forums	Dismissed as unripe; plaintiffs must pursue Illinois remedies first; dismissal without prejudice
Whether equitable relief (injunction) is available for the alleged taking	Sorrentino: Court of Claims cannot provide equitable relief, so federal injunction is necessary; state procedures are futile	Godinez: ordinary Takings remedy is monetary; exceptions for equitable relief don't apply here (not private use or facial challenge)	Equitable-relief exceptions don’t apply; monetary remedy in Illinois is appropriate; no federal injunction
Whether an implied-in-fact breach-of-contract claim against the DOC director can proceed in federal court	Sorrentino: alleged implied contract formed at purchase bars later policy changes	Godinez: sovereign immunity and state-law jurisdictional rules require such contract claims to be brought in Illinois Court of Claims	Dismissed due to state sovereign immunity / Pennhurst principles; claim may be pursued in Illinois Court of Claims; dismissal without prejudice
Whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice	Sorrentino: sought ability to proceed in federal court or asked for futility exception	Godinez: procedural defects warrant dismissal	Court affirms dismissal on merits but modifies judgment to be without prejudice so plaintiffs may pursue state remedies

Key Cases Cited

Williamson Cnty. Reg'l Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (ripeness requirement for Takings Clause; must seek state compensation remedy first)
Peters v. Village of Clifton, 498 F.3d 727 (presumption that damages, not injunction, is appropriate Takings remedy)
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (suits against state officials for prospective injunctive relief under federal law)
Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (limits on federal jurisdiction over state-law claims against states)
San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City & County of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323 (facial regulatory challenges in takings context)
Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (regulatory takings analysis and facial challenges)
Daniels v. Area Plan Comm'n of Allen Cnty., 306 F.3d 445 (futility exception to state-litigation requirement)
Murray v. Conseco, Inc., 467 F.3d 602 (dismissal should be without prejudice when refiling in proper forum is appropriate)
Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574 (Illinois Court of Claims is the required forum for contract claims against the State)
Patzner v. Baise, 552 N.E.2d 714 (Illinois distinction between true takings and damaging/diminution claims)