CA Prison Canteen Price-Gouging Case Dismissed
CA Prison Canteen Price-Gouging Case Dismissed
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has dismissed a class action lawsuit brought by state prisoners alleging that prison officials unfairly raised canteen prices to make up for money lost in an earlier prisoner lawsuit.
In 2003, several California prisoners had sued prison officials because they were not receiving the interest earned on their trust accounts. Instead, the money was deposited into the Inmate Welfare Fund (IWF), As a result of that case; however, prisoner accounts were no longer placed into interest-bearing accounts. See Schneider v. Cal. Dept. of Corr. 343 F, 3d 716 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because the IWF relied in part on funds generated by the interest on inmate trust accounts, it lost revenue. In order to make up for the shortfall, prisoners in the current suit say that canteen prices were unfairly and unlawfully increased.
Their suit claimed the sudden price increases violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and constituted “price gouging" under California law.
The district court, though, dismissed all of the prisoners' claims. U.S. District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton noted that prisoners are not forced to buy anything at all from the prison canteen, and thus no takings clause violation existed.
In dismissing the price gouging claim, the court found that (1) there is no constitutional right to purchase anything from the canteen other than the necessities of life, (2) that the prisoners were aware of the prices and authorized the expenditure of funds from their accounts, and (3) there was no evidence that the prices were unfair or unlawful.
See: Godoy v. Horel, U.S.D.C. (N.D. Cal. 2010), Case No. C 09-4793 PJH.
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Godoy v. Horel
| Year | 2010 |
|---|---|
| Cite | U.S.D.C. (N.D. Cal. 2010), Case No. C 09-4793 PJH |
| Level | District Court |
| Conclusion | Bench Verdict |