## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 10- 3075 , 10
- 3076 , 10
- 3077, 10- 3078 , 10
- 3106 & 10
- 3140 R OBERT T EN NY, et al., P laint if fs -App el lants , v. R OD R. B LA GOJ EV I CH, et al., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 10- CV-03683— Charle s R. Norgle, Sr. , Judge . N o. 10
- 3169 M ARC O S G RAY, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v . R O GE R E. W ALKER, J R ., et al. D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 10- CV-04637

—Rebec ca R. Pal lmey er, Judge
. A RG UE D J UNE 9, 2011

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 25, 20112 N os. 10
- 3075 , 10
- 3076, 10
- 3077, 10
- 3078, 10- 3106, 10
- 3140 & 10
- 3169 Befo re M A NI ON, W OO D , a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges. M A NI ON, C ircu it Judge. Ill i noi s has a sta tutor y c ap on the pri ce pr i son com m i ssa ri es can char ge i nm ate s f or any i tem purchase d. The pla i nti ff s in thes e con sol i dated case s a r e s e v e n i nma t e s i nc a r c e r a t e d a tS t a t e v i l l e Co r r ecti o na l Ce nt eri n J o l i et, Il li no i s. The y s ue d c ur r en t an d f or m ero ffi ci al s in t h e I l l i noi s Depart m ent o fCor re cti ons, and the f or m erGo ve rn or, f orm ar ki ng up the pr i ce o f co m m i ss ar y g o o ds beyond tha t ca p. I n e ac h c as e, the di s t r i c tc o ur ts c r e e ne d the c o mpl a i ntu nd er 28 U. S
. C. § 1 915A and d ism i sse d the ca se f orf ai l ure to sta te a claim up on w hich rel iefm ay be gran ted
. Th e plaintiff s appeal, fra m i ng the m att eras a vi ol ati on o fthei r proce du r a l du e pro ce s s r i g ht s u nd e r the F o ur t e e nth Am e nd

m ent. Because no pre - depr iva tio n proc ess co uld have p red ic te d o r pr ev en te d the a l l eg ed depr i va ti o n, a nd pla i nti ff s h av e not al l ege d the ab sence ofadequate postd e p r i v a t i o n r e me d i e s , w e a ffi r m.
I. By sta tute, I l l i noi s ca p s the m ar k- up o n go ods so l d at pri son com m i ssa ri es to i nm ate s t o 25% o vert h e co st of goo ds so l d (3 5% f ortobacco pro du cts)
. 73 0 I l l
. Com p. S tat . 5/3- 7- 2a. The m ar k- up co ver s th e w ages a nd bene fi ts of c om m is s a r y e m p loy ee s. Id. I n Nov embe r 2 00 5, the I l l i noi s Depart m ent of Cor re cti ons i m posed a pu rpor ted 3% m ar k- up , wh i ch w as in cre ase d to 7% i n ear l y 2 006. Dur i nga n a udi t o fthe De par tmenti n J une 2 00 6, the I ll inois A ud itor G en eral discove red that com m issa ryN os. 10
- 3075 , 10
- 3076, 10
- 3077, 10- 3078, 3 1 0- 3106, 10
- 3140 & 10
- 3169 g o o d s h a d a l r e a d y b e e n ma r k e d u p t o th e maxi m um 25 % , a nd tha t th e ne w 7% m ar k

- up was on to p of th e ex i st i ngmar k

- up

— i n v i o l at i o n o fthe I l l i no i s st atut e. The Audi to r Ge ne r alr ec o m m en ded th atthe De par tment conf or m it s pri ci ng pol i cy to the s tatute o r see k a for m al op in ion from th e A tt or n ey G en er al. D e s p i t e th e Au d i t o r G e n e r a l ’ s fi n d i n g s a n d r e c o mm en dat i o ns , the De par tmentmai nt aine d the unl awful ma r k

- u p s . I t i n f o r me d th e Au d i t o r Ge n e r a l th a t i t “i ntended to w or k w i th o therautho ri tat i ve St ate ag enci es re ga rd in g a m or e re fin ed int er p re ta tio n of c os t of goo d s.” Du ring hi s s ubsequent a ud i t tw o yea rs l ate r, the A ud i tor Ge n e r a l a g a i n f o u n d th a t“ i n ma t e c o mmi s s a r y g o o ds [ wer e] mar k ed up mor e th ana l l o wed b y s ta tu te . ” The D ep artm en t c o n t inu es to m aintain that com m issary p ric es “h av e b ee n d e t er m in ed by th e D ire c to r to be in ac c or d an c e w ith Sta te Sta tu te s.” The pla i nti ff s e ach fi l ed gr i evance s withi n the pri son sys tem . A l l appeal s were denie d. The St ate vi l l e pr i son de t e r mi ne d tha tthe p r i c i ngp o l i c y wa s c o nt r o l l e d b y th e Depa r tment, a nd the Depa r tmentc o nc l ude d tha t th e pol i c y c om pli ed w i th st ate l aw . The pl ai nti ff s then fi l e d th e s e s ui t s i n fe de r a l di s t r i c tc o ur tu nd e r 4 2 U. S
. C. § 19 83 , a l l eg i ngv i o l at i o ns o fthe i r fede r ala nd s ta te c o nsti tu ti o na l r i g ht s. S i x o fthe m fi l ed a sing l e co m pl aint on be h alf ofth em se lve s, se ek in g t o re p re se n t a ll sim ilar ly si tu at ed i nm ate s ( Tenny, e t al. v. Blag ojevi ch, e t al. )
. The l astpl ai nti fffiled his o w n com pla i nt, m aking substa nti al l y the sa m e a l l ega ti ons as th e fi rs t ( G ray v. Wa lk er,4 N os. 10
- 3075 , 10
- 3076, 10
- 3077, 10
- 3078, 10- 3106, 10
- 3140 & 10
- 3169

B ecaus e ofthe § 19 15 A dis m i s s al, the defen dant s i n the se 1 c as es wer e ne ver s er ved n ot i c e ofthe c om pl ai ntno r the ap p eal. A t o u r inv itation , the Illinois A ttorn ey G en era l sub m itte d a r es p o n se b ri ef. etal. )
. I n each cas e, th e dist ri ct c ourtscr eened and di sm i ss ed th e co m pl ai nt u nd er2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 91 5A, fi ndi ng that the pl ai nti ff s had f ai l ed to s tate a cl ai m bec ause th e y had no fed eral constitu tional ri gh t to com m issary acces s no r to parti cul ar p ric es f orco m m i ssa ryi tem s. 1 The di st r i ctc o ur t did not addr es s th e I l l i no i s co ns ti tu
ti onalcl ai m s in ei thercas e.
II. On appe al, th e pl aint i ff s cl ai m th at the D epa r tment i s vi o l at i ngthe i r c o ns ti tu ti o na l r i g htt o pr o ce dur aldue pr o ce ss unde r th e F o ur te en th Am en dm en t bydepr i ving them o fa prot ecte d property i nter est( thei r sta te- cre ate d ri ght t o a ca p on the m ar k- up o fco m m iss ary i tem s) w i thout du e pr oce ss ofl aw . A p ro c ed uraldue proc ess vi o l a t i o n o c c u r s wh e n ( 1 ) c o n d u c tb y s o me o n e a c ti ng und erthe col oro fst ate l aw ( 2) depri ves the pl ai nti ffo f a pro tect ed proper ty i nter est( 3) witho ut due p roces s o f law
. G er m ano v. Winneb ago Co unty, Ill
. , 40 3 F
. 3d 926, 927 ( 7th Ci r. 2 00 5). A pro tect ed proper ty i nter esti s a “l egi ti m ate cl ai m o fentitl em ent” that i s “ defined by ex i st i ngr ul es o r unde r st an di ng s th ats te m fr o m a n independ ent s ourc e s u ch as sta te l aw . ” B oard of Regents v. R oth , 408 U .S. 56 4, 57 7 (1 97 2) ; Ger m ano , 40 3 F
. 3d at 927.N os. 10
- 3075 , 10
- 3076, 10
- 3077, 10- 3078, 5 1 0- 3106, 10
- 3140 & 10
- 3169

T he o p p ort uni t y t o c hoo s e t o s pen d m one y a tthe pr i s on 2 com m issary a t a p rice h igh er th an the statu tor y cap is relativ ely m ino r com p are d to th e d en ial of a retirem en t be ne fit tha t the co u nty w as req u ired to p r ov id e for retired d ep u ties. (co n tin u ed ...) W e r evi ew de nov o the di str i ct c ourt ’ s di sm i ssa l under § 1 91 5A
. O rtiz v. D o w ney, 561 F. 3d 664, 669 (7th C ir. 2009). The p l ai nti ff s dra w thei r ar gum ent e xtensi vel y fro m Ger m ano , 40 3 F
. 3d 926. I n that case , a pla in tiff c lass o f r et i r ed dep ut ie s o fthe c o unty s he r i ff’ s depa r tment sued t h e co unty, al l eging tha t co unty pol i cy vi ol ate d Illino is law
. Id. at92 7. I l l i noi s l aw pro vi des thatco unti es cannot offera gr oup heal th i nsurance p olic y t o i ts acti ve depu ti es unl es s i t al so al l o ws r eti r ed depu ti es t o c o nt i nue on the pol i cy at the s am e pr em i um r ate se t fo r acti ve d e p u tie s. Id. T he p l a i nt i ff s a l l e g e d in pa r ttha tthe c ounty wa s r e q u i r i n gr e t i r e d d e p u t i e s t o p a y h i g h e r p r e mi u ms th an ac tiv e d ep u tie s. Id. The co urt concl ud ed that th e I ll inois statu tes in q u e s t ion d id creat e prop erty interest s f orr eti re d dep uti es and t hat i t di d not doubt that “[ c] ounty pol i cy i s in v iol ati on o fthi s s tat e l aw . ” Id. at 927- 28. The pla i nti ff s a rgue thati nm ate s hav e a si m i l ar p ro p er t y in te re st in t h e c ap s o n co m m iss ar y p ric es : although the pri sons a re n ot re quir ed to pro vi de com m i ssary acc ess, w h e r e t he y d o prov ide ac cess , the p lai nt iffs claim they hav e a prop erty interest create d by the statu tory cap. The A tto rneyGenera l cit es A shley v. Sn yd er, 73 9 26 N os. 10
- 3075 , 10
- 3076, 10
- 3077, 10
- 3078, 10- 3106, 10
- 3140 & 10
- 3169

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 2 N eve rth el es s , hypo the t i c al l y, an d f or the s ake ofthi s ar gum en t , w e w ill ap p ly th e an aly sis as i f the p ro p erty intere st for the p rison inm ates is the sam e as for the retired d ep u ties. Thatas s um pt i on l ea ds t o the que s t i on ofwhethe r the s t atute thatc aps c om m i s s ar y m arku ps was des i gne d t o be ne fi tpr i s on i n mat e s r a th e r th a n s i mpl y p r o v i di n g g u i de l i n e s f o r p r i s on op era tion s. I n S a n d in , the Su pre m e Co u rt he l d thatpr i s on re gul at i ons 3 do n ot t he m s e l ve s c r e a t e pr ot e c t e d li b erty i nter es ts other than “fre edom fro m r es t ra i nt w hich
. . . i m pos es atypi c al an d si gnific ant hardship o n the i nm ate in r el ati on to the ordinary inci dents ofpris on li f e. ” 515 U.S
. at 483- 84. The A tt orney G en er a l m a k es a str o n g ca se th a t the re a so n i n g o f S a n d in ( alth ough per haps no ti n a l l ofthe par t i c ul ar s ) s houl d ex t en d t o s t a t u t o r i l y c r e a t e d p r o p e r t y i n t e r es t s a s we l l
. B e c a u s e we d ecid e thi s c ase o n o the r gr ou nd s, w e ne ed no t tak e a p ositio n o n t h is is su e, w h ic h h a s sp lit th e c ir cu its
. C ompareC os co (co n tin u ed ...) N .E .2d 89 7 (Ill. A p p . 200 0), w h ich h eld th at Il l i n ois pri son re gul ati ons do not cre ate subst anti ve i nter est s p rotecte d un d er the D ue Proces s claus e. I f A shley w ere an i nd ependent i nter p re tati on o fthe I l l i noi s pri son code, thati nter preta ti on would co ncl usi vel y e stabl i sh that the pl ai nti ff s hav e no p rotec ted pro pertyi nter est . Bu t A shley m er el y fol l ows Sa nd in v . Co nn er, 51 5 U.S
. 47 2, 483- 84 ( 1995 ) , i n decl ar i ng tha t pr i son re gulat ion s d o not gener al l y c re ate pro tect ed l iber ty i nter est s a nd does not add re ss w hetherther e m ay be prot ec ted pro perty i nter est s. 3N os. 10
- 3075 , 10
- 3076, 10
- 3077, 10- 3078, 7 1 0- 3106, 10
- 3140 & 10
- 3169

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 v . Up h o ff , 19 5 F
. 3d 1 22 1, 12 23
- 24 ( 10 th Ci r. 19 99 ) ( ex t en di ng S a n d in ’s ra tio n a le to p ro p er ty in te re sts ), w i th Han db erry v. Thom pso n , 446 F.3d 3 3 5, 353 n. 6 ( 2d C ir
. 2006) ( noti ng that S a n d in d o es n o t a p p ly to p ro p er ty in te re sts ) and Bu lgerv. U n i te d S tat es , 65 F .3d 48 , 50 (5t h C ir . 19 9 5 ) (sam e). P ar ra tt was ov e r r ul e d o n a no the r po i nto fl a w by D a n iels 4 v . Wi l l i a ms , 47 4 U .S. 3 2 7(19 8 6 ). Bu t e v e n a s s umi ng a pr o t e c t e d pr o pe r t y i nt e r e s texi sts , the pl ai nti ff s’ a n al ogyto Ger m ano actual l y underm i nes th ei r c l ai m . Af te r r ec o g ni zinga p rope r tyi nt er es t, the co ur t i n Ger m ano held th at th e cou nt y’s actions w ere “r andom and unauthori zed” withi n the m eani ng o f Parrat tv. Tayl or, 4 5 1 U. S
. 5 2 7, 541 (1 9 8 1 ) , a nd E a ster 4 H o use v. Feld er, 910 F.2d 138 7, 1404 ( 7th Cir. 1990) (en ban c), an d thus due p ro ce ss di d no t r equi r e an y s o r t o fhe ar i ng be f o r e t he al l eg ed depr i va ti o n o cc ur r ed. The c o ur t ex pla i ned that “[ t] he co unty’ s deci si on t o act contr ar y t o thi s s t a t e l a w wa s no t a utho r i z e d a nd c o ul d no t hav e be enpr edi ct ed o r pr ev en te d b y the s ta te thr o ug h a ny sor t o fpre - depri vati on hea ring. ” Id. at 9 29. I n other w or ds, “no pro cess aff or ded pl ai nti ff w ou l d have be en su ffi ci en t to e st ab li sh tha t th e co unty c o ul d c ha r g e th e r et i r ed depu ti es r at es di ffer en t th an tho se c ha r g ed no nre ti re d dep uti es. ” Id. The co urt dism i sse d the ca se. This case f ai l s f ort h e sam e r eas ons that Ger m ano faile d . Th e c en tr al q u es tio n, a s w e re c og n ize d th er e, is w hetherthe Dep ar tm ent’ s pri ci ng pol i cy i n the pri son8 N os. 10
- 3075 , 10
- 3076, 10
- 3077, 10
- 3078, 10- 3106, 10
- 3140 & 10
- 3169
com m i ssa ry gi ves ri se to the type of depri vati on that m i ght b e pr eve nted by som e pr e-d epri vati on pro cess . Se e, e . g. , Ell i s v. Sh e ahan , 412 F.3d 754 , 7 5 7 -58 ( 7th Cir. 2005 )
. Her e, a s i n Ger m ano , th e a n s we r i s n o . T h e pl ai nti ff s su g g es t th ats o m e so r t o fno ti ce - an d- co m m en t r ul emak i ngmights at i sfy c o nstitut i o na l due pr o ce ss . The pros pect o fa federa l co urt or deri ng a sta te to cre ate such a proce du re r i sks tur ni ng pro ceduraldue proc ess i nto a co nsti tuti onal l y m andated sta te adm i ni str ati ve pr o c e du r e a c t. B ute v e n i fthi s we r e p o s s ib l e , n o t i c e - a nd

com m ent r ule m aking would notsa ti sfy the p laintiff s’ com pla i nts. I t c ou l d not pre vent the Depart m ent fro m vi ol ati ng I l l in ois l aw any m or e than i t co uld per m i t s uch a v i o l a t i o n. I nd e e d, h o w coul d anypro cess i ni ti ate d by the Depart m ent per m i t itto exce ed the l i m i tat i ons set b y sta tu te ? T h e pla in tiffs als o su gg es t th at Illin o i s sh ou ld h a v e r e q u i r e d th e A t t o r n e y Ge n e r a l t o a p p r o v e c o mmi s s a r y p r i c i n gp o l i c y c h a n g e s , a tl e a s to n c e i tb e c a me cl ea r tha t th e Depa r tmentha d no i nt en ti o n o fc o m pl y i ng wi th s t a t e l a w. Wha t, the n, i fthe At t o r ne y Ge ne r a l a pprove d the m ar k- up s in vi ol ati on of s ta te l aw ? These l att er sugg est i ons com e cl ose to as ki ng us to m andate th at Il lin ois co m p ly w ith it s o w n l aw s, w h ich w e w ill n otd o. See infra atp. 8. W here m eani ngful pre- depri vati on r evi ew would ei ther be i m possibl e o r i neffectual, ad eq uate post- depri vati on re m edi es m ay sat i sfy const i tuti onal du e proce ss requir em en ts . SeeP a rratt, 45 1 U.S
. at53 9. The pl ai nti ff s hav e not al l eg ed that post

- depri vati on r em edi es ar e inadeq u at e, w h ich is fata l to th eir c laim at t h i s ju n c tu re . SeeN os. 10
- 3075 , 10
- 3076, 10
- 3077, 10- 3078, 9 1 0- 3106, 10
- 3140 & 10
- 3169 LaBe l l a Wi nne t ka, Inc . v. Vi l la ge of Wi nne t ka , 62 8 F
. 3d 937, 944 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) ( “[The pl ai nti ff ] al l ege s nei therthat i t a vai l ed i tse l fo fst ate post
- d ep riv ati on r em edi es, nor that the a va ilab l e r em edi es ar e inadequ ate , as i t was re q u ire d to d o.” (cit at ion om itt ed )). N ordo we thi nk tha t a m ending the c om pla i nts t o i nc l ude s ucha n a l l eg at i o n wo ul d b e a sim pl e fi x, a s th e p l a i n t i ff s a v e r . I n th e i r r e p l y b r i e f, f o r t h e fi r s tt i me i n thi s ca se , the pl aint i ff s ar g ue tha t the y h av e no vi abl e pos t- depri vati on r em edy: the I l l in oi s Courto f C lai m s, w hich has ex clusive j urisd ictio n o ver m one tary cl ai m s a gainst the S tat e, does not have j uri sdic ti on t o “c o ns i derthe c o ns ti tu ti o na l i tyo r v al i di tyo fr egul at i o ns orst atute s. ” Tedderv. State, 40 Ill. C t. C l. 20 1 (1 99 8). W h ile tha tma y b e r e l e v a ntt o the p o s t
- de pr i v a t i o n r e med y anal ysi s, i t doe s no t e nd it . F i rs t, the pla i nti ff s hav e al re ady had so m e pos t- depri vati on r em edi es

— they al l ege that they h ave com pla i ned und erthe pri son sys tem gr i evance pro cedure and app eal ed the denia l o ftho se cl ai m s. T he y ha ve thus ha d the o ppo r tu ni tyt o pr es en t thei r ar gum ents to the Depart m ent i tse l f, wh i ch i s a s m uc h as th eir p rop osal f o r no ti ce - an d- co m m en t rul em aking would achi eve . S eco nd , it i s no t a t a l l cl ear th at th e pla in tiffs ’ c laim s in th e C ou rt of Cla im s w o u ld necess ar i l y invol ve a dete rm i nati on o fthe val i dity o r const i tuti onal i ty ofa sta tute or r egul ati on. They a l l ege th at the Depart m ent’ s pri ci ng pol i cy vi ol ate s I l l i nois l aw. Butwe do no t k no w w ha t th e C o ur t o fCl ai m s co nsi ders a r egul ati on, and the pri ci ng pol i cy i n thi s ca se, w hi ch i s not f ound in the I l l i noi s A dm i ni str ati ve C od e,10 N os. 10
- 3075 , 10
- 3076, 10
- 3077, 10
- 3078, 10- 3106, 10
- 3140 & 10
- 3169

m ayo r may no t f al l i nt o tha t ca te g o r y . Fi na l l y, ev eni fthe pla i nti ff s a re co rr ect that the Cour t o fCl ai m s wil l not consi der a cl ai m base d o n the i l l ega l i ty of a p rison p olic y, ot h er Il lin o i s c ou rt s c an an d w ill en te rt ain su ch clai m s and m ay gran t inj un ctive an d de c la r atory re lief. E.g
. , Hadl ey v . D ept . of Cor r e ct i ons , 84 0 N
. E.2 d 748 ( I l l
. A pp . Ct. 20 05) ( hol ding that i nj uncti ve r eliefwas appr o pr i at e f o r c ha l l en g e to v al i di tyo fpri son po l i cya nd that m edi cal co- paym ent charg es f or i nd i gen t inm ate s vio lat ed Il lin ois law ), af f’ d 864 N
. E
. 2d 162 (I ll
. 2007). W hi l e the path t o re l i ef

— includ ing p oten tial m one tary awar ds i fa nd whe n th e cur r en t co m m i ss ar y mar k

- up pol i c y i s decl ar ed i l l ega l

— m ay be c i rcui tous, thi s doe s no t m a k e i ti n a d e q u a t e . We a r e th u s s a t i s fi e d th a tthe p l a in tiffs h av e a d eq u at e p os t-d ep riv at ion rem ed ies in st at e co ur t, whi ch do o m s th ei r co ns ti tu ti o na l due proce ss cl ai m s. Puta no th erway, thi s ca se i s r ea l l y abo uta s ubs ta nti ve vi ol ati on o fI llin ois l aw , notabo ut the proce du re s requ ired before th e plaintiff s can be d ep rived of a proper ty i nter est . The pl ai nti ff s’ gri evance i s about what w as done (th e m ar k- up i n exces s o f25 % ) , notthe pro cedu res follow ed to d o it. A n d t h at is ex ac tly w h at th is c ou rt, an d th e Su p re m e C ou rt, ha ve w or rie d “w ou ld m ake o fthe Four tee nth A m endm ent a f ont of tor t l aw , ” o r i n this cas e a dm i ni str ati ve l aw , ” t o be s up er i m posed u pon w hatev ersy ste m s m ay al re ady be adm i ni ste re d by the S tat es. ” E a s t e rHo use, 9 10 F
. 2d at1 39 6 ( quo ting P arrat t, 45 1 U.S
. at54 4)
. Fe deralco urt s d o n ot si t t o c om p el a st at e’s co m p l i a n c e w ith its ow n law
. C f. U
. S.N os. 10
- 3075 , 10
- 3076, 10
- 3077, 10- 3078, 11 1 0- 3106, 10
- 3140 & 10
- 3169 C on st ., am en d . XI; Ar ch i ev. Ci ty of Raci ne, 84 7 F. 2d 1211 , 12 17 ( 7th Cir. 1 988) ( expla i ni ng di ffer ence between a s ui ta l l e g i ngv i o l a t i o n o fp r o cedural due p r o c e s s a nd a su i t se ek i ng t o e nf o r ce s ta te l aw)
. Ev ena ss um i ngthe pla i nti ff s were depri ved ofa proper ty i nter estcr eat ed by sta te l aw , “[ f ] ai l ure to im p l em ent s tat e l aw vi ol ate s th at st at e la w , no t t h e C on st itu tio n ; th e re m e d y lies in sta te cour t. ” Ger m ano , 403 F. 3d at 929 ( citat io n om itted ). T h e p lain tiffs ’ fed er al c on st itu tio n al c laim s fa il.
III
. Forthes e r eas ons, we hol d t hat the pl ai nti ff s in thes e conso l i dated appeal s hav e no t a l l eg ed a vi ol ati on o f du e pr oce ss und erthe Four tee nth A m en dm ent. Even ass um i ng tha t the pris on r egul ati on i n thi s ca se cre ate d a pro tect ed proper ty i nter estin a cer tai n cap on the m ar k- up o fco m m i ssa rygo od s, the pl ai nti ff s hav e no t al l ege d th at post- depri vati on r em edi es ar e inadequ ate to s at i sfy c o ns ti tu ti o na l due pr o ce ss r equi r ements. But w h ile th e fe d er al c on st itu tio n al c laim s w er e c or re c tly di smi ss ed o n the mer i ts , the i nde pen den t state c o ns ti tu
tional claim s w ere no t a d d r e s s e d . W e th e r e fo re R EMA ND b o thc as es t o the di st r i ctc o ur t wi thi ns tr uct i o ns to dism i ss the s tat e l aw cl ai m s without prej ud i ce.

8- 25- 11