Click Back Button to Return to Publication
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK O'BANION,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RONDLE ANDERSON, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-4201
October 25, 2002 *, Submitted
October 25, 2002, Decided
NOTICE:RULES OF THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.
ORDER
Patrick
O'Banion, an inmate at Indiana's Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, filed a
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that an unnamed prison employee
destroyed his "religious property" without due process. O'Banion
alleges that after converting to the "Native-American" religion he
requested that prison officials purchase a list of religious items worth
$56.00, including imitation feathers and furs. The items were purchased with
O'Banion's funds and delivered to the prison in May 1999, but withheld until
O'Banion paid an additional $3.00 for postage. On July 1, 1999, a staff member
in the prison's purchasing
department [**2] informed O'Banion that his items were to be
destroyed for lack of approval, but a week later O'Banion received
contradictory notice that two prison chaplains had approved delivery of the
items to him. Notwithstanding the chaplains' approval, an unnamed employee
destroyed the items on July 26. The district court screened O'Banion's complaint
and dismissed it as frivolous, holding that Indiana law provides an adequate
post-deprivation remedy for his loss. O'Banion appeals and we affirm.
On appeal O'Banion argues that the district court erred in
dismissing his complaint without permitting him an opportunity to cure its
deficiencies. We review dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for abuse of
discretion. Gladney v. Pendleton Corr. Facility, 302 F.3d 773, 775 (7th Cir.
2002). O'Banion's complaint cannot be salvaged by repleading, for his
contentions are frivolous.
O'Banion's
due process claim requires him to show that he was deprived of a
constitutionally protected life, liberty, or property interest without
sufficient procedural safeguards. Siebert
v. Severino, 256 F.3d 648, 659 (7th Cir. 2002). But O'Banion alleges that [**3]
the prison authorities had approved his request for the Native American
items, and that their destruction was the unauthorized act of an unnamed prison
employee. When property is taken or destroyed through such an unauthorized act of a
state employee, there can be no claim for violation of due process if an
adequate post-deprivation remedy exists under state law. Husdon v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 531-36, 82
L. Ed. 2d 393, 104 S. Ct. 3194 (1984); Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535-44,
68 L. Ed. 2d 420, 101 S. Ct. 1908 (1981). O'Banion's federal claim under § 1983
is foreclosed because adequate state remedies exist to compensate him for lost
property. See Gable v. City of
Chicago, 296 F.3d 531, 539 (7th Cir. 2002). Specifically, Indiana's Tort Claims
Act, Ind. Code § 34-13-3-1, et seq., creates a state-law mechanism by which
O'Banion may seek compensation.
In order to
avoid this outcome, O'Banion attempts to frame his claim for lost property as
one for a violation of the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. We have
previously held that an inmate may pursue a claim under § 1983 for violation of
substantive constitutional [**4] rights, despite the existence of state tort
remedies. Nance v. Vieregge, 147 F.3d
589, 590-91 (7th Cir. 1998). Nevertheless, O'Banion has no First Amendment
freedom-of-religion claim because he does not suggest that the confiscation of
his property restricted the exercise of his religious beliefs. He cannot
resurrect his property claim simply by characterizing the feathers and furs as
"religious property" without alleging that his religious observance
was unreasonably restricted, see Employment
Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 877, 108 L. Ed. 2d 876, 110 S. Ct. 1595 (1990); Turner
v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 96 L. Ed. 2d 64, 107 S. Ct. 2254 (1987); Canedy v.
Boardman, 91 F.3d 30, 33 (7th Cir. 1996) (inmate's free exercise right does not
"depend upon his ability to pursue each and every aspect of [*777]
the practice of his religion"), or that prison authorities
destroyed the items because of their religious nature, or as discrimination
against his particular religion. See, e.g.,
Sasnett v. Litscher, 197 F.3d 290, 293 (7th Cir. 1999).
Finally, we
note that O'Banion's pursuit of a frivolous complaint and this appeal [**5]
counts as two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
AFFIRMED.
* Appellees notified this court
that they were never served with process in the district court and would not be
filing a brief or otherwise participating in this appeal. After an examination of
the appellant's brief and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is
unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the appellant's brief and the
record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).