Shinault
Shinault v. Hawks
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Hawkins, J.
ORDER
The opinion filed on January 22, 2015, and published at 776 F.3d 1027 , is hereby amended as follows:
On page 1032, the following text should be placed in a new footnote inserted after the words < significant sum in the inmate’s account. >:
With this amendment, the petition for panel rehearing is denied. Judges McKeown and Tallman have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc and Judge Hawkins so recommends. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35.
Appellees’ petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc will be entertained.
OPINION
Lester Shinault (“Shinault”) appeals the adverse grant of summary judgment on his claim that state officials violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments when the Oregon Department of Corrections (“ODOC”) froze more than $60,000 in his inmate trust account to recover the cost of his incarceration. The district court held that Shinault received sufficient process because the State held a hearing prior…