On August 22, 2012, two individuals incarcerated by the Illinois Department of Corrections filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, et seq., against the State of Illinois. The ...
read more >
On August 22, 2012, two individuals incarcerated by the Illinois Department of Corrections filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, et seq., against the State of Illinois. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel and the Uptown People's Law Center, alleged that prison employees confiscated several items of personal property from their cells. They asked the Court for a judgment declaring that the confiscation constituted a taking without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment and the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and directing the defendant to either return or provide just compensation for the confiscated property.
The plaintiffs, incarcerated at the Stateville Correctional Center ("Stateville") purchased several items from the prison commissary, including a typewriter and multiple fans, that had been approved for prisoner use. In July 2012, the Warden of Stateville reversed course and mandated the confiscation of all typewriters and any fan in excess of one per inmate.
On October 3, 2013, the District Court (Judge Thomas Durkin) granted the defendant's Motion to Dismiss and dismissed all counts with prejudice. 2013 WL 5497244. The Court found that the removal of the items from plaintiffs' cells did not constitute a taking. It determined there was no deprivation of property since incarceration entails limitations upon certain rights, including the right to possess property. The Court also found that the plaintiffs did not enter into a contract with the state when they purchased their items from the prison commissary.
On October 29, 2013, plaintiffs appealed their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Oral arguments were heard on September 10, 2014 before Judges Easterbrook, Tinder, and Wood.
On February 17, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that the District Court was correct in dismissing the action, but the dismissal should have been without prejudice.
Nate West - 10/02/2014
Erin Pamukcu - 02/22/2016
compress summary
