Fifth Circuit Rules Against Louisiana Prisoner Seeking to Recoup Money Made at Angola Prison Rodeo
by Douglas Ankney
On September 29, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of qualified immunity (QI) to Louisiana prison officials on the ground that, at the time of the alleged constitutional violation, the law was not clearly established that prisoners have a property interest in their money in their trust fund accounts.
Prisoner Gregory Savage sold leather belts at the Angola Prison Rodeo while incarcerated at the Louisiana State Prison at Angola (“Angola”). From 1996 to 2019, his gross receipts from sales were approximately $80,000. Savage initially filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in Louisiana state court, alleging various Angola prison officials unlawfully seized $16,000 from those sales receipts and requesting a refund of the money. After more than a year passed without action from the state court, Savage filed a suit under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 in federal court against those officials at Angola, along with Gary Westcott, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (“Defendants”).
Savage argued the Defendants violated his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment when they conspired together to thwart his grievance and persuade the Commissioner of state court to deny him a hearing on his mandamus petition seeking a refund of the unlawfully seized funds. The Defendants moved for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing Savage had failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and that they were entitled to QI. A magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation which, curiously, denied the Defendants’ motion to dismiss as to the conspiracy claim and denied QI to the Defendants. The district court adopted the magistrate’s report and recommendation. The Defendants filed an interlocutory appeal on the denial of QI.
The Fifth Circuit observed “[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” See: Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009). “A public official is entitled to qualified immunity unless ‘(1) the plaintiff alleged a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.’” See: McKay v. LaCroix, 117 F.4th 741 (5th Cir. 2024).
While Savage argued on appeal that he had been denied both pre- and post-deprivation due process, the Court concluded that he had argued only a denial of post-deprivation due process (referring to when, in the district court, he alleged the Defendants improperly controlled the grievance process regarding the money taken from his rodeo earnings and improperly controlled the state-court proceedings). Consequently, Savage’s pre-deprivation due process claim was forfeited. See: Rollins v. Home Depot USA, 8 F.4th 393 (5th Cir. 2021).
The Court said that “[t]o state a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must first identify a protected life, liberty or property interest and then prove that governmental action resulted in a deprivation of that interest,” as decided in Morris v. Livingston, 739 F.3d 740 (5th Cir. 2014). Also, “In procedural due process claims, the deprivation by state action of a constitutionally protected interest in life, liberty, or property is not in itself unconstitutional; what is unconstitutional is the deprivation of such an interest without due process of law.”
While Calhoun v. Collier, 78 F.4th 846 (5th Cir. 2023) had held that “inmates have a protected property interest in their prison trust fund accounts, entitling them to due process with respect to any deprivation of the use of those funds,” that decision came long after the violations Savage had alleged. Further, the issue in Calhoun concerned a prisoner whose request to withdraw money from her own prison trust fund was denied without any notice or opportunity to be heard and did not address the issue of the state seizing funds from a prisoner’s trust fund.
The Court concluded that, at the time of the violations alleged by Savage, “the law was not clearly established that Savage had a property interest in the proceeds from the sale [of] belts he made as a prison inmate using materials furnished by the prison and sold at an event sponsored by the prison.”
Accordingly, the Court reversed the district court’s order denying QI and remanded. See: Savage v. Westcott, No. 22-30125 (5th Cir. 2025).
[Note to Readers: According to the Fifth Circuit, until the Calhoun decision, prison officials were unaware that prisoners have a property interest in the money from which the prison officials require prisoners to pay their fines, restitution, and make all purchases. Apparently, the Court is going to be shocked to discover that prisoners are bipedal creatures capable of discerning the Court’s injustice and are now 5/5ths human as opposed to 3/5ths.]
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
Savage v. Westcott
| Year | 2025 |
|---|---|
| Cite | No. 22-30125 (5th Cir. 2025) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |