No Clearly Established Due Process Right in Inmate Craft‑Sale Proceeds: Fifth Circuit Grants Qualified Immunity in Savage v. Westcott

Introduction

In Savage v. Westcott, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, in part, a district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Louisiana corrections officials in a suit brought by Gregory Savage, an inmate at the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola. Over more than two decades, Savage sold leather belts at the Angola Prison Rodeo, a prison-sponsored event that permits inmates to sell arts and crafts. He alleged that prison officials improperly deducted roughly 20% of his approximately $80,000 in sales as “taxes, credit card fees, and commission,” and that they then conspired to deny him both administrative and judicial process regarding those deductions.

The appeal presented two central issues: (1) whether Savage preserved a pre-deprivation due process claim and (2) whether, at the time of the deductions and grievance proceedings, it was clearly established that an inmate had a Fourteenth Amendment due process-protected property interest in the proceeds of crafts made with prison-supplied materials and sold at a prison-sponsored event. The Fifth Circuit held that the pre-deprivation theory had not been properly raised below and that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the post-deprivation theory because the relevant right was not clearly established. Claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were left for the district court on remand.

The decision clarifies the contours of “clearly established law” in the specialized context of inmate-generated revenue from prison programs, and it illustrates the strict pleading requirements for preserving distinct pre- and post-deprivation due process theories.

Summary of the Opinion

Procedural posture and jurisdiction: The defendants took an interlocutory appeal from the district court’s order denying qualified immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The Fifth Circuit’s review was de novo but limited to legal questions concerning qualified immunity, not evidentiary sufficiency.
Pre-deprivation due process: The court held that Savage did not plead or otherwise preserve a pre-deprivation due process claim in the district court. Even under liberal construction of a pro se complaint, general references to “due process” were insufficient to present a distinct pre-deprivation theory. Qualified immunity was therefore warranted as to any pre-deprivation claim.
Post-deprivation due process: Accepting the complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations as true, the panel concluded that it was not clearly established, at the time of the alleged conduct, that an inmate has a due process-protected property interest in proceeds from crafts made with prison-provided materials and sold at a prison-sponsored event. Because the right was not clearly established, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the damages claims, including the conspiracy theory.
Remaining claims: The court expressly did not resolve requests for declaratory and injunctive relief (qualified immunity is a damages defense). It also flagged Supreme Court precedent on federal takings litigation (Knick and DeVillier) as potentially relevant on remand, though the parties had not addressed those authorities.
Disposition: The denial of qualified immunity was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings on non-immune relief.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Role

Interlocutory review and scope of appellate jurisdiction:
- Mitchell v. Forsyth and Armstrong v. Ashley establish that denials of qualified immunity are immediately appealable “final decisions” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
- McMurry v. Weaver and Kinney v. Weaver limit appellate review to legal questions; the court can assess the materiality, but not the genuineness, of factual disputes at this stage.
- Bevill v. Fletcher confirms de novo review of qualified immunity denials on a motion to dismiss, accepting well-pleaded facts and drawing reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.
Qualified immunity framework:
- Pearson v. Callahan and Harlow v. Fitzgerald articulate the two-prong qualified immunity test: (1) violation of a constitutional right and (2) whether that right was “clearly established” at the time. Pearson permits courts to address either prong first.
- McKay v. LaCroix reiterates those prongs within the Fifth Circuit’s recent articulation.
Procedural due process basics:
- Morris v. Livingston and Gentilello v. Rege provide the requirement that a plaintiff identify a protected life, liberty, or property interest and show deprivation without constitutionally adequate process.
- Zinermon v. Burch distinguishes between the deprivation of an interest and the absence of due process; the constitutional harm is process-focused.
Inmate property interests in funds and wages:
- Rosin v. Thaler (Fifth Circuit unpublished) recognizes a protected property interest in funds in a prison account.
- Guzman v. Hollingsworth and Nutall v. Maye (Fifth Circuit unpublished) emphasize the substantial discretion prison officials have over job assignments and wages; reductions or withholdings of wages do not necessarily implicate a protected property interest.
- Calhoun v. Collier (2023) holds that inmates have a protected property interest in the funds already in their prison trust accounts and are entitled to due process before being deprived of those funds. Crucially, Calhoun post-dated much of the conduct alleged here and, in any event, did not address deductions from sales proceeds of inmate-made crafts sold at a prison-sponsored event.
Pleading standards and forfeiture:
- Erickson v. Pardus requires liberal construction of pro se complaints, but
- Rollins v. Home Depot USA confirms that arguments not raised in the district court (or not adequately briefed on appeal) are forfeited. The panel applied this to Savage’s pre-deprivation theory.
Takings litigation in federal court:
- Knick v. Township of Scott (2019) removed the state-exhaustion barrier for federal takings claims, permitting federal-court access without a “state-litigation” prerequisite.
- DeVillier v. Texas (2024) addresses the mechanisms for bringing takings claims against state actors in federal court. The panel noted neither party briefed these authorities, signaling their potential importance on remand for any equitable relief or alternative constitutional theories.

Legal Reasoning

1) Pre-deprivation due process was not preserved

Although Savage’s complaint broadly referenced “due process,” the panel carefully examined the specific allegations and found they targeted post-deprivation events—alleged manipulation of the administrative grievance process and state-court proceedings—rather than any failure to provide process before the funds were deducted. At oral argument, counsel could not point to specific district-court filings setting forth a pre-deprivation theory. Applying Erickson’s liberal construction of pro se pleadings but grounding its analysis in Rollins’ forfeiture rule, the court concluded the pre-deprivation theory was not raised below and therefore cannot be advanced now. Qualified immunity thus attaches to any pre-deprivation claim.

2) Post-deprivation due process and the “clearly established” inquiry

The panel accepted, for purposes of the motion to dismiss, that Savage plausibly alleged that various officials interfered with, coordinated, or otherwise controlled the prison grievance process and the parallel state-court proceeding. The key question, however, was whether these allegations implicated a clearly established due process right at the time.

The court emphasized two steps embedded in procedural due process analysis: (a) identifying a protected property interest and (b) deciding whether the governmental process provided was constitutionally sufficient. The qualified immunity lens focuses on whether a right to process was clearly established in the specific context at issue.

On property interests, Fifth Circuit authority draws distinctions:

Funds already in an inmate’s trust account are protected property interests (Calhoun). Due process is required before deprivation of those funds.
By contrast, prison employment and wages are highly discretionary; reductions or withholdings have not consistently been treated as implicating protected property interests (Guzman; Nutall).

The proceeds here were not wages in the traditional sense, nor were they simply funds already sitting in a trust account. Rather, they were gross receipts derived from a prison-sponsored event, involving goods made with prison-provided materials and a sales infrastructure (tax compliance, credit card processing, and “commission” for grounds maintenance) administered by the prison. The panel concluded that, at the time of the alleged deductions and grievance handling, it was not clearly established that an inmate has a constitutionally protected property interest in these specific proceeds—i.e., the net amounts left after prison-imposed deductions at the point of sale—triggering due process rights to a post-deprivation hearing.

Because the asserted right was not clearly established, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the damages claims, including the conspiracy claim premised on the same alleged denial of post-deprivation process. The court expressly noted that even its later decision in Calhoun did not resolve this craft-sale context.

3) Scope of the ruling and issues left open

The panel’s decision does not decide whether Louisiana law (e.g., La. R.S. § 15:874 governing inmate compensation accounts) gives rise to a protected property interest in such proceeds. It decides only that, as of the relevant time period, no such right was clearly established for purposes of overcoming qualified immunity on damages.
The ruling does not dispose of claims for declaratory or injunctive relief; qualified immunity does not apply to such relief. The court highlighted, without resolving, potential relevance of the Supreme Court’s takings jurisprudence (Knick; DeVillier) to any equitable claims on remand.
The court did not adjudicate the merits of the underlying administrative or state-court proceedings or the specific conspiracy allegations; it addressed only the qualified immunity defense to damages.

Impact

On prisoners’ property rights and prison programs

The decision narrows the path for damages actions under § 1983 when inmates challenge deductions taken from proceeds associated with prison-run sales programs. Unless and until controlling authority recognizes a protected property interest in such proceeds—and articulates the requisite process—officials will likely be shielded by qualified immunity in damages suits arising from this specific context. Prison administrations can continue to structure event-based sales (like rodeo arts and crafts) with deductions for taxes, processing fees, and commissions without immediate exposure to damages liability, provided their conduct does not violate clearly established law.

Pleading strategy and litigation practice

Plaintiffs must distinctly plead pre- and post-deprivation due process theories. Boilerplate references to “due process” may be insufficient to preserve a pre-deprivation claim, especially on interlocutory appeal. Specific allegations that officials failed to provide process before a deprivation, including what process was constitutionally due, are essential.
The “clearly established” prong is fact-specific. Plaintiffs should marshal closely analogous Supreme Court or Fifth Circuit authority that addresses the precise context at issue—here, deductions from inmate craft-sale proceeds generated in prison programs—rather than relying on general due process principles or cases involving trust-account funds.
Where damages are blocked by qualified immunity, equitable relief may remain available. Plaintiffs should consider whether claims sound in takings (rather than—or in addition to—procedural due process), especially in light of Knick and DeVillier, and frame requests for declaratory or injunctive relief accordingly.
Unpublished decisions are often insufficient to “clearly establish” law. While the panel referenced several unpublished Fifth Circuit cases, their limited precedential weight, combined with divergent outcomes, underscores how difficult it is to defeat qualified immunity without a close published analog.

State law and institutional policy

The opinion flags, but does not resolve, whether Louisiana law confers a protected entitlement in rodeo-sale proceeds or limits permissible deductions. On remand, the district court may confront state-law contours when considering any equitable relief and the potential application of takings principles. Prison systems may wish to clarify by policy or regulation the ownership of inmate-made goods, the point at which proceeds become inmate property, and the legal basis for deductions, including taxes and commissions, to mitigate uncertainty and future litigation risk.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Qualified immunity: A defense protecting government officials from money damages unless they violate a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time. Courts can decide either whether a right exists or whether it was clearly established first; if the right was not clearly established, the official is immune from damages even if a violation might later be recognized.
Clearly established: Not a broad principle; it requires precedents (from the Supreme Court or controlling circuit) that put the specific question “beyond debate” for a reasonable official in the same context.
Pre- vs. post-deprivation due process: Pre-deprivation process is notice and an opportunity to be heard before property is taken. Post-deprivation process concerns remedies available after a deprivation. The theory must be pleaded with specificity; general references to “due process” may not preserve both.
Property interest: Defined by independent sources like state law or established rules. Funds already deposited in an inmate trust account may be protected; by contrast, discretionary wages or pre-deposit receipts might not be, absent clear authority.
Interlocutory appeal of qualified immunity: Defendants can immediately appeal a denial of qualified immunity. The appellate court reviews legal questions de novo and does not weigh evidence.
Takings vs. due process: A takings claim alleges government appropriated private property without just compensation. After Knick, plaintiffs need not exhaust state remedies before suing in federal court. DeVillier addresses how takings claims proceed against state actors; this may matter for equitable relief in cases like Savage where deductions resemble government exactions.

Conclusion

Savage v. Westcott refines qualified immunity doctrine at the intersection of prison administration and inmate economic activity. The Fifth Circuit held that, as of the relevant time, it was not clearly established that an inmate possesses a Fourteenth Amendment due process right in the net proceeds from crafts made with prison-supplied materials and sold at a prison-sponsored event. The court also enforced the requirement to plead pre- and post-deprivation theories distinctly, concluding the pre-deprivation claim was forfeited. While damages claims against the officials are barred by qualified immunity on these facts, the panel left open potential avenues for declaratory or injunctive relief and signaled that modern takings jurisprudence may bear on any continuing claims.

The opinion’s immediate effect is to protect the defendant officials from damages liability in this case. Its longer-term significance is twofold: it underscores the highly particularized nature of the “clearly established” inquiry in qualified immunity and it invites further development—perhaps under takings or state-law theories—of the legal status of inmate-generated revenues in prison-run programs. Prison systems and litigants alike should heed the opinion’s distinctions between trust-account funds, discretionary wages, and sales proceeds, as these categories may control whether and when due process protections attach.

Case Details at a Glance

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Panel: Chief Judge Priscilla Richman; Judges Haynes and Graves
Date: September 29, 2025
Parties: Gregory Savage (Plaintiff–Appellee) v. Gary Westcott (Secretary, LDPSC) and other Angola officials (Defendants–Appellants)
Holding: Reversed denial of qualified immunity; remanded. No clearly established due process right in inmate craft-sale proceeds; pre-deprivation theory not preserved; equitable claims unresolved.