Shinault v. Hawks, 782 F.3d 1053

Shinault, an Oregon inmate, had a large medical settlement proceeds deposited in his ODOC trust account; ODOC froze funds to recoup incarceration costs.
ODOC issued a May 29, 2009 order demanding Shinault pay approximately $65k for current and prior incarceration costs.
On June 2, 2009 Shinault sought a case hearing; on the same day ODOC transferred funds to a reserved sub-account and prevented access.
An administrative hearing resulted in an order (approximately $61k) to repay; funds were withdrawn about a year later.
Shinault filed suit claiming due process and Eighth Amendment violations; district court granted summary judgment; ruling on qualified immunity followed.
The panel ultimately held a pre-deprivation hearing is required before freezing substantial inmate assets, but affirmed on due process grounds due to lack of clearly established rights at the time; the decision relied on qualified immunity for the constitutional claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Pre-deprivation due process required before freezing inmate assets	Shinault argues pre-deprivation process was required for a substantial asset freeze	ODOC contends post-deprivation process suffices and a hearing was adequate	Pre-deprivation hearing required before freezing substantial inmate assets
Eighth Amendment claim based on medical care withheld by asset freeze	Shinault contends freezing funds impeded access to medical care	Freeze was reimbursement/administrative, not denial of care; adequate care provided	No Eighth Amendment violation from freezing/withdrawing funds; care adequate
Qualified immunity for ODOC officials on due process claim	Right to pre-deprivation hearing was clearly established	No clearly established right; post-deprivation standards precedent applies	Qualified immunity applies; right not clearly established at the time

Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (1990) (due process varies; pre-deprivation generally required when feasible)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (balancing factors for due process before deprivation)
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (notice and opportunity to object before substantial liability)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (constitutional duty to provide medical care in prison)
Quick v. Jones, 754 F.2d 1521 (1985) (pre-deprivation required for final withdrawal of funds in certain contexts)
Sickles v. Campbell Cnty., Ky., 501 F.3d 726 (2007) (post-deprivation may suffice for smaller deductions)
Tillman v. Lebanon Cnty. Corr. Facility, 221 F.3d 410 (2000) (no pre-deprivation required for certain daily charges)
Slade v. Hampton Roads Reg’l Jail, 407 F.3d 243 (2005) (no pre-deprivation for $1 per-day deduction)
Montanez v. Sec’y Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 773 F.3d 472 (2014) (pre-deprivation hearing required in similar context)
Barry v. Barchi, 443 U.S. 55 (1979) (pre-deprivation not always required in some contexts)
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) (preliminary due process in education context)
Loudermill, Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v., 470 U.S. 532 (1985) (pre-deprivation hearing required before termination)