Tenny v. Blagojevich
659 F.3d 578
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Illinois caps commissary markups at 25% over cost (35% for tobacco).
- In 2005–2006, DOC imposed 3% then 7% markups, later auditors found 25% cap exceeded and extra markup persisted.
- Auditor General audits documented unlawful markups and Department’s refusal to conform with statute.
- Inmates filed §1983 suits alleging procedural due process violations and violation of state law cap; district courts dismissed under §1915A for failure to state a claim.
- Plaintiffs argued the cap created a protected property interest; defendants argued no such interest or adequate remedies pre-deprivation.
- Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal, holding pre-deprivation process would be infeasible and post-deprivation state remedies suffice; remanded state-law claims to district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the pricing cap create a protected property interest? | Inmates have a state-law created property interest in the cap. | Prison regulations generally do not create protected property interests; no such interest here. | No due process violation; no protected property interest established. |
| Could pre-deprivation process have prevented the deprivation? | Notice-and-comment or AG oversight could have foreseen or prevented excess markup. | Pre-deprivation review would be impossible or ineffective; state law violations are substantive, not process failures. | Pre-deprivation process not required; not feasible to prevent violation. |
| Are post-deprivation remedies adequate to satisfy due process? | State remedies are inadequate or unavailable for monetary claims against state. | State courts provide post-deprivation remedies; adequacy exists. | Post-deprivation state remedies are adequate; due process claim fails. |
| What happens to the state-law claims? | State-law claims should be heard in federal court. | State-law claims should be addressed in state court. | Remanded to district court to dismiss state-law claims without prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Germano v. Winnebago County, Ill., 403 F.3d 926 (7th Cir.2005) (procedural due process and Parratt framework; state remedies later suffice)
- Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1981) (deprivation without pre-deprivation process may be cured by post-deprivation remedies)
- Easter House v. Felder, 910 F.2d 1387 (7th Cir.1990) (en banc; due process concerns about federal intervention in state processes)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1995) (prison regulations generally do not create liberty interests; impacts on due process)
- Hadley v. Dept. of Corrections, 224 Ill.2d 365, 309 Ill.Dec. 296, 864 N.E.2d 162 (Ill. 2007) (injunctive relief available challenging prison policy; state-law context)