Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1696697.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 21:20:37+00:00

Document:
Shinault's counsel in the product liability suit deposited the settlement proceeds into Shinault's inmate trust account. ODOC establishes trust accounts for each inmate, which are subject to various regulations governing accrual of interest, limitations on use and access, and offset for indebtedness. OR. ADMIN. R. 291–158–0015 et seq. Oregon law establishes that inmates are liable for the full cost of their incarceration, subject to various limitations. OR. REV. STAT. §§ 179.620; 179.640. For instance, officials must take into consideration the inmate's ability to pay, id. § 179.620(1)-(2), and “the inmate's need for funds for personal support after release.” OR. ADMIN. R. 291–203–0040(5). Officials have discretion to waive collection “based on the best interest of the inmate or the department.” Id. 291–203–0080.
Given Shinault's substantial interest, the risk of erroneous deprivation, and the ability to provide a hearing without compromising a significant government interest, we hold that a state must provide a hearing prior to freezing a significant sum in the inmate's account.5 Thus, we conclude that Shinault received insufficient due process as the result of Oregon's actions.
5. Our holding is of course limited to circumstances in which the government's interest arises from recouping incarceration costs. We need not and do not decide here whether, or when, a pre-deprivation hearing is required when the state's action is motivated by concerns other than those at stake when the government is seeking to defray the costs of incarceration.
6. The most recent appellate court decision on point required a pre-deprivation hearing, but that case was decided long after ODOC officials froze Shinault's assets. Montanez v. Sec'y Pa. Dep't of Corr., 2014 WL 5155040, at *7–8 (3d Cir. Aug. 15, 2014).
7. Qualified immunity does not apply to claims for declaratory or injunctive relief. Hydrick v. Hunter, 669 F.3d 937, 939–40 (9th Cir.2012). As Shinault disclaimed an injunctive remedy during oral argument, his due process claim is dismissed on summary judgment.
8. We could also affirm on the basis of qualified immunity because defendants did not have notice that they violated a constitutional right. A number of courts have rejected Eighth Amendment challenges to various fees charged to inmates, although none of those decisions were exactly on point. See, e.g., Poole v. Isaacs, 703 F.3d 1024, 1027–28 (7th Cir.2012); Shapley v. Nev. Bd. of State Prison Comm'rs, 766 F.2d 404, 408 (9th Cir.1985); Gardner v. Wilson, 959 F.Supp. 1224, 1228 (C.D.Cal.1997).

References: § 179
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.