statement,” or other document that would have advised DeBrew to take this step. Furthe ) (“If prison employees refuse to provide inmates with [the required] forms when requested, it is difficult to understand how the inmate has any available remedies”). Finally, the defendants urge us to affirm the district court’s order dismissing this claim on the alternative ground that De-Brew does not have a property interest in the money allegedly retained by the BoP. See Young v. Wall, 642 F.3d 49, 51 (1st Cir.2011) (“Weighing in on an issue that has split the circuits, we conclude that prison inmates lack a constitutionally protected property right in interest not yet paid” on the money held in their prison accounts); but see Schneider v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 151 F.3d 1194, 1201 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Because the district court did not reach this
holding that prisoners possess constitutionally cognizable property right that implicates takings clause scrutiny in any interest earned from paid labor holding that inmates have a property interest in their money holding that because prisoner did not have private property interest in his prison accounts there could be no unconstitutional taking holding inmates possess a constitutionally cognizable property interest in the interest earned on money held in their prison accounts holding that inmates have no constitutionally protected interest in the wages earned while in prison