972 F.2d 351 (7th Cir. 1992), 91-3259, Hendrix v. Evans
|Citation:||972 F.2d 351|
|Party Name:||James M. HENDRIX, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Daniel F. EVANS, Jr., John T. Shettle, Cloid Shuler, et al., Defendants/Appellees.|
|Case Date:||July 13, 1992|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA7 Rule 53 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Decided Aug. 13, 1992.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, No. 84-C-625, Allen Sharp, Chief Judge.
Before CUDAHY and COFFEY, Circuit Judges, and PELL, Senior Circuit Judge.
James Hendrix claims that officials at the Indiana State prison violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court entered summary judgment against Hendrix, and we affirm.
Until recently, Hendrix inhabited K Dormitory, a facility located outside the walls of the Indiana State Prison (ISP). Hendrix and other inmates from K Dormitory sued various prison officials alleging violations of their constitutional rights. 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Several of these claims arose out of Hendrix's participation in Lifers United for Penal Progress ("Lifers"). Hendrix and other Lifers hoped to lobby in favor of a prison reform bill before the Indiana General Assembly. Hendrix criticized the appellees' refusal to support the bill and claimed that they prevented him from participating in Lifers meetings.
Hendrix also challenged the allocation of prison funds. At the ISP, an inmates's money is not within his direct control; it is put in a trust account maintained by prison officials. Although the money from the trust is placed in interest-bearing accounts, the prisoners do not receive the interest income, which is invested in the Prison Recreation Fund. This fund, according to Hendrix, benefits prisoners inside prison walls but not those in K Dormitory. Hendrix also objected to a prison policy which prevents prisoners from sending money to non-relatives without a substantiated reason.
The appellees moved for summary judgment on all of these claims 1, which the district court granted. Hendrix appealed.
Although prisoners' rights are not co-extensive with the rights of other citizens, a prisoner nonetheless retains rights "not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system." Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners Labor Union, Inc., 433 U.S. 119, 125 (1976). With this in mind, we review the record de novo to determine if the court properly entered summary judgment. Hayes v. Otis Elevator Co., 946 F.2d 1272, 1277 (7th Cir.1991). We affirm if we find "no genuine issue as...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP