# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 23, 2011 *

Decided March 24, 2011

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 10

‐ 1280

DENNIS L. HOHOL,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellant

,

v.

CATHY JESS, et al.,

Defendants

‐ Appellees

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 07

‐ C

‐ 1004

C.N. Clevert, Jr.,

Chief Judge

.

O R D E R

Dennis Hohol, a Wisconsin state prisoner, appeals the grant of summary judgment

in his suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that four prison officials violated his First

Amendment rights by denying him books that he purchased because they exceeded the

allowable $75 limit set by the prison. We affirm. NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P.

34(a)(2)(C).No. 10

‐ 1280 Page 2

Hohol is an inmate at the Dodge Correctional Institution. In October 2007 a three

‐

volume book set arrived for him at Dodge’s mail room. The books, from the set entitled

Wisconsin Court Rules and Procedure—State, Federal, and Local (2007), had been shipped

directly from Thomson West, and a packing slip indicated their total cost was $110. This

amount exceeded the allowable limit of $75 for a property item under Wisconsin’s prison

rules

. See Division of Adult Institutions Policy and Procedure 309.20.01; Wis. Admin. Code

§ 309.20(5). Hohol submitted an offender complaint, contending that the set should have

been allowed because each volume was a separate item costing less than $75. Warden Cathy

Jess, as the reviewing authority, rejected his complaint based on the recommendation of

institution complaint examiner Michael Beck. Corrections complaint examiner Tom

Gozinske concurred in that determination, and his recommendation to dismiss Hohol’s

complaint was accepted by Amy Smith, Deputy Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of

Corrections.

The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants Jess, Beck, Smith and

Gozinske, finding that none of them was personally involved in the initial decision not to

allow Hohol to receive the books, and in any event all defendants were protected by

qualified immunity because their conduct (enforcing a prison policy placing monetary

limits on personal property) was not clearly unconstitutional. The court denied Hohol’s

subsequent postjudgment motion.

The district court properly concluded that Defendants were not personally

responsible for any deprivation of Hohol’s constitutional rights and thus cannot be liable

under § 1983, see Minix v. Canarecci

, 597 F.3d 824, 833 (7th Cir. 2010); Johnson v. Snyder

, 444

F.3d 579, 583 (7th Cir. 2006). Although the Defendants approved the mailroom staff’s

decision to deny receipt, “[o]nly persons who cause or participate in the violations are

responsible.” George v. Smith

, 507 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007). An official “who rejects an

administrative complaint about a completed act of misconduct does not [cause or contribute

to the violation].” Id

. at 609

‐ 10. Because Defendants did not cause or participate in the initial

decision to deny receipt of the book set, they are not subject to liability under § 1983.

In any event, the district court properly determined in the alternative that the

Defendants are protected by qualified immunity in that their conduct did not violate a

“clearly established” constitutional right. See Saucier v. Katz

, 533 U.S. 194, 201

‐ 02 (2001);

Gonzalez v. City of Elgin

, 578 F.3d 526, 540 (7th Cir. 2009). No law or analogous case suggests

that a prison’s internal review of a policy placing monetary limits on an inmate’s personal

property is unconstitutional, nor is such a policy so egregious that we would regard it as

patently violative of a constitutional right. See Estate of Escobedo v. Bender

, 600 F.3d 770, 780

(7th Cir. 2010); Steidl v. Fermon

, 494 F.3d 623, 632 (7th Cir. 2007); Siebert v. Severino

, 256 F.3d

648, 654

‐ 55 (7th Cir. 2001).

AFFIRMED.