AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for
Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Inmate Property
Monthly Law Journal Article: Legal Issues Pertaining to Inmate Property, 2008 (3) AELE Mo. L.J. 301.
A prisoner appealed the denial of his federal post-conviction motion for the return of seized property that he claimed went missing from the physical custody of state officials while federal charges were pending against him. The property, seized from him by state employees at the time of his arrest included a fake mustache; a black wig; numerous items of clothing; a bank robbery demand note; multiple wallets, knives, lighters, bags, and keys; the title to a vehicle; and a small container with a crystalline substance within it that tested positive for methamphetamine. Federal officials had requested that state officials hold the seized property for possible use as evidence in a federal prosecution for bank robbery. After he pled guilty to state charges, some of the property, including a wallet, the keys, and the van title, were released to his ex-wife, and some other items were released to him after his time for appeal expired, but he claimed that other items were not returned. His motion in federal court was denied because he had other adequate legal remedies, including a state cause of action and a pending federal civil rights lawsuit. And because the court in the federal criminal case lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant money damages for any missing property. United States v. Bacon, #16-4106, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 23293 (10th Cir.). |
Medical Care
After a prisoner was stabbed by a fellow inmate and then died at a hospital, his estate filed a civil rights lawsuit claiming that the warden violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by illegally interfering with the prisoner’s end-of-life medical care with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity, as his alleged actions, including the entry of a do not resuscitate order and the decision to remove the prisoner from artificial life support, did not fall within the scope of his discretionary authority. Alabama law established that defendant's discretionary authority did not extend to such actions and therefore he was not entitled to qualified immunity. The Estate of Cummings v. Davenport, #17-13999, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 27909 (11th Cir.).
Medical Records A detainee claimed that two jail officials in Coffey County, Kansas, violated his constitutional rights by disclosing medical information about him that they had properly obtained. He was set to be extradited from Illinois to Kansas, and the Kansas jail requested that Illinois arrange for multiple medical examinations of him to determine whether he had suffered injuries after being tasered by U.S. Marshals. The Kansas official learned that the plaintiff had bone lesions and possibly cancer. This information was conveyed to the Coffey County Sheriff, who conveyed it to Coffey County Hospital, and then to the plaintiff's family and friends, without first obtaining his permission. A federal appeals court ruled that the defendant officials were entitled to qualified immunity, as their actions did not violate any clearly established law, and dismissed the case. Leiser v. Moore, #17-3206, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 25284 (10th Cir.). |
Prison Litigation Reform Act: Exhaustion of Remedies
A prisoner was assaulted by his cellmate and filed informal and formal “assault requests” that were denied. He was subsequently transferred to another cell. A counselor had allegedly warned him that unless he stopped filing requests she would place him with a new cellmate known for assaulting other prisoners. An officer allegedly told him that he was being moved because he “didn’t listen.” His new cellmate allegedly threatened to kill him. He subsequently claimed to have suffered cuts, bruises, and emotional distress during altercations with his new cellmate. Because he feared further retaliation, he did not file a grievance at his facility, but rather with a Regional Director, who rejected it and directed him to file it at his facility, noting that there was “no record of you being assaulted by your previous or current cellmate. . . your appeal is denied." His further appeal to the General Counsel was denied on the merits. A federal appeals court vacated, in part, the dismissal of his claims. The court found that his Assault Request was denied at the highest level on the merits and was properly exhausted under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a). His Retaliation Request satisfied the objective test for unavailability. Accepting his allegations as true, “a reasonable inmate of ordinary firmness and fortitude” would be “deter[red] . . . from lodging a grievance.” A Federal Tort Claims Act claim, however, was properly dismissed as concerning discretionary functions. Rinaldi v. U.S., #16-1080, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 25805 (3rd Cir.).
New arrivals at a county jail were required to surrender their possessions. A class action on behalf of detainees asserted that the county sheriff did not do enough to prevent guards and other employees from losing or stealing those possessions. Evidence in the case, however, showed that the loss-or-theft rate had been falling after the sheriff implemented additional controls. A federal appeals court, based on this evidence, upheld a jury’s rejection of the claims. The class did not allege that the sheriff personally stole anything or even tolerated a known thief, and no guard was a defendant. The jury concluded that the sheriff had taken “reasonable measures.” The court upheld a jury instruction that the sheriff could be found liable for violating the Fourteenth Amendment if there was a widespread custom or practice which allowed the plaintiffs’ property to be lost or stolen, that was the moving force behind plaintiffs’ losses, and the defendant was deliberately indifferent to those losses. Another instruction said: “The Office of the Sheriff ... need not have formally approved the conduct so long as Plaintiffs prove that a policy-making official knew of the pattern and allowed it to continue.” Elizarri v. Sheriff of Cook County, #17-1522. 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 24014 (7th Cir.).
An inmate in a Wisconsin prison left two boxes of personal property for his son to pick up. The prison’s policy was that such property on deposit must be picked up in 30 days, or else shipped to someone the prisoner designated. If the prisoner’s account did not have enough to cover the shipping costs, the property was then destroyed. When the son did not retrieve the boxes within 30 days, a shipping cost of $9.50 was calculated, which was $2 more than the prisoner had in his account. The property was accordingly destroyed without notice to the prisoner. A federal appeals court upheld the dismissal of a due process claim against the sergeant in charge of the mailroom. The defendant was not responsible for giving notice, and only carried out the policy. The warden and deputy warden were not liable, as the policy did not authorize the destruction of property without notice. At most, this amounted to a negligent bureaucratic error, which was insufficient for a due process claim. Streckenbach v. Van Densen, #16-1695, 868 F.3d 594 (7th Cir. 2017).
A prisoner in administrative
segregation claimed that a limit of two personal books imposed by the prison
violated his sincerely-held religious beliefs in violation of the Religious
Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"). He was
later moved out of segregation and allowed 15 personal books. The trial judge
declined to dismiss the case as moot, finding that the prisoner would likely be
returned to segregation in the future, and ruling that the two-book policy
violated the RLUIPA, enjoining future enforcement of the policy. A federal
appeals court reversed, finding that the plaintiff's transfer from segregation
to the general population did moot the case, depriving the court of jurisdiction.
It rejected an argument that a "capable of repetition, yet evading
review" exception to the mootness doctrine applied, since it declined to
assume that the prisoner would repeat the misconduct that previously resulted
in his segregation. Ind v. Colorado Dept. of Corrections, #14-1168, 2015 U.S.
App. Lexis 16223 (10th Cir.).
A California prisoner
claimed that the appeals coordinators at a prison violated his due process
rights and California correctional regulations by cancelling his inmate appeal in
which he asked that prison officials accept liability for personal property
items of his that he said were damaged or lost when he was transferred there
from another facility. An intermediate state appeals court held that he failed
to show that he had a protected liberty interest in the prison's administrative
lost property appeals process. In re Williams, #D066887, 2015 Cal. App. Lexis
938.
Two prisoners purchased
fans and a typewriter from the prison's commissary, but the facility
subsequently forbade inmates to possess these items, and the property was taken
from them. In their proposed class action lawsuit, they argued that this was an
unconstitutional taking of property and a breach of contract. Upholding the
dismissal of the federal civil rights lawsuit, the federal appeals court held
that a property owner cannot assert a claim under the Just Compensation Clause
of the Constitution if a state has an adequate procedure for seeking just
compensation until they have tried to use the procedure and been denied relief.
In this case, the prisoners had not attempted to assert their claim under state
law before filing their federal lawsuit. Sovereign immunity barred their
contract claim in federal court. Sorrentino v. Godinez, #13-3421, 2015 U.S.
App. Lexis 1060 (7th Cir.).
A prisoner who belonged to the Celtic Druid
religion asserted that prison officials violated his right to religious freedom
because they denied him permission to possess a religious medallion a prison
chaplain had said he could order. The prison had a legitimate rule barring
medallions costing over a certain amount or which were non-conforming. The
expensive and mirrored medallion he ordered violated the rule. The prisoner
failed to show that the policy was enforced in a discriminatory manner. McFaul
v. Valenzuela, #11-10218, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 12283 (5th Cir.).
A man who completed his sentence for multiple
sexual crimes against children was then civilly committed. The staff at the
psychiatric facility to which he was sent seized CDs and DVDs numbering in the
hundreds from him, and he claimed that they took too long before returning them
after screening them for possible sexually explicit material, in violation of
his First and Fourth Amendment rights. Staff members were entitled to qualified
immunity from liability, since it was objectively reasonable to believe that
their actions were legal. The interest of the state in security, order and
treatment of the plaintiff outweighed any property interest the plaintiff had
in quickly getting back his things or receiving a detailed explanation at the
time of the seizure. The court also rejected the plaintiff's claim that some of
his incoming non-legal mail was withheld. He had not shown that it was withheld
without justification, and there was a strong interest in preventing him from
obtaining inappropriate images which outweighed his weak interest in
immediately receiving commercial mail seized for screening. Ahlers v.
Rabinowitz, #10-1193, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 7035 (2nd Cir.).
A prison did not violate the First Amendment,
Eighth Amendment, or Fourteenth Amendment rights of a prisoner suffering from
chronic medical conditions by refusing to permit him to possess copies of the
books "Physician's Desk Reference," and "the Complete Guide to
Drugs." While the prisoner argued that he should be allowed to have these
books to learn about possible side effects to medications he was prescribed for
his medical problems, it was reasonable to limit prisoner access to books about
drugs. Munson v. Gaetz, # 11–1532, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 4960 (7th Cir.).
A prisoner who claimed that her Bible, rosary
beads and other religious materials were taken during a shakedown of her cell
while she was in punitive segregation and were not subsequently returned stated
a claim for violation of her right to religious freedom. One judge on the
three-judge panel believed that going forward on the claim as to the
deprivation of the rosary beads was improper because the prison prohibited an
inmate in segregation "to possess any item, including rosary beads, that
could be wrapped around the neck to commit suicide." Kendrick v. Pope,
#11-1564, 671 F.3d 686 (8th Cir. 2012).
Because of a number of past incidents in which
Nevada prisoners have used parts from typewriters as weapons, a correctional
department rule prohibiting inmate possession of typewriters did not violate
inmate rights. This did not deprive prisoners who already owned typewriters of
their property, as they were given the option of shipping them to family
members, having them destroyed, or donating them to charity. Nevada Department
of Corrections v. Greene, #08-17091, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 16829 (9th Cir.)
A Wisconsin prisoner was denied receipt of a
three-volume set of law books that he ordered through the mail and which cost
$110. A prison rule restricted the receipt of any one item of property to a
value of $75. The prisoner argued that the set constituted three items, each of
which cost less than $75. A federal appeals court rejected the claim that
denying him receipt of the set violated his First Amendment rights. Some
defendants were not personally involved in the decision to withhold the books,
while others were protected by qualified immunity, as the inmate had no clearly
established right to receive the materials in violation of a rule about the
monetary value of property received. Hohol v. Jess, #10-1280, 2011 U.S. App.
Lexis 6138 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
An Arizona prisoner claimed that the confiscation
of certain books violated his First Amendment and due process property rights.
Rejecting these claims, a federal appeals court found that there was no viable
due process claim as the loss of the property, while intentional, was
"random and unauthorized." Additionally, he was offered a settlement
amount for their loss, and his dissatisfaction with the amount did not render
the post-deprivation remedy inadequate, since he could have filed suit in state
court. The First Amendment claim was properly rejected as the confiscation of
the books, besides being random and unauthorized, was not based on their
content. The state Department of Corrections was entitled to Eleventh Amendment
immunity from liability. Skinner v. Ariz. Dept. of Corrections, #09-16848, 2010
U.S. App. Lexis 21152 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
An Indiana prisoner claimed that a property officer and
a guard improperly confiscated legal documents and other property and
interfered with his right of access to the courts. The property was taken and
stored when the prisoner was transferred to a county jail temporarily to appear
in court. The amount of property was in excess of what would fit in a box being
used to transfer property going with the prisoner. Some of it was allegedly
never returned. The prisoner could not pursue a due process claim because
Indiana state law provides adequate post-deprivation remedies for loss of
property. The court also rejected a right of access to the courts claim because
the loss of the legal documents did not cause any prejudice to his criminal
case as he was represented by a lawyer. Edwards v. Faust, #09-3264, 2010 U.S.
App. Lexis 23101 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
An inmate claimed that Indiana prison officials
and employees were responsible for the loss of his boom box, ten cassette
tapes, a combination lock, and two "starfoam coolers" which were not
returned to him after he was transferred to a California prison from one in
Indiana. Upholding the dismissal of the lawsuit, an intermediate Indiana
appeals court noted that state law concerning holding government employees
personally liable for the loss of such property must show that the employees'
acts or omissions were criminal, clearly outside the scope of their employment,
malicious, willful and wanton, or calculated to benefit the employee
personally. The plaintiff prisoner failed to show that any of these factors
were present. Prison officials were shielded against liability for the
negligent loss of prisoner property under a state Tort Claims Act. Mott v.
Buss, #46A04-1003-SC-17, 2010 Ind. App. Unpub. Lexis 1270 (Unpub.).
A Texas inmate claimed that prison employees
intentionally destroyed his property, and that he therefore should be allowed
to pursue a federal civil rights claim against them. The appeals court noted,
however, that the inmate failed to show that these alleged actions were
anything other than, at most, a random and unauthorized deprivation, or that a
state law action for "conversion" of his personal property would be
an inadequate post-deprivation remedy. Because of this, the prisoner could not
pursue a federal civil rights lawsuit over the lost property, even if he could
show that it had been intentionally destroyed, as he claimed. Jackson v. Maes,
#09-11238, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 17638 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
An Ohio prisoner being transferred to a new
facility asked that his TV set be mailed to his home address. Instead it was
forwarded to another facility, and he regained possession of the set following
another transfer, but claimed that it no longer worked. He sued the Department
of Rehabilitation and Correction for negligently damaging his property. The
Ohio Court of Claims entered judgment for the Department, finding that it was
not an "insurer" of the TV set, although it did have a duty to make
reasonable efforts to protect such property. There was no proof that the set
was damaged because of negligent conduct attributable to the defendant. McCoy
v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Corrections, #2009-04904, 2010 Ohio Misc.
Lexis 9 (Ct. of Claims).
A prisoner complaining about a search of his cell
and confiscation of his legal papers and other property failed to show a
violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, since his status of incarceration
meant that he had no right to privacy or protection from unreasonable searches.
His due process rights were not violated, since there were adequate
post-deprivation remedies for the seizure of his property, and he failed to
show a violation of his First Amendment rights, since he alleged no actual
injury that resulted from the removal of his legal papers and did not claim
that the seizure of religious materials prevented him from observing any
religious belief or practice. He also failed to show that there was a
retaliatory motive for the search and a videotape of the search refuted any
claim that an officer used excessive force in restraining the plaintiff.
Tindell v. Beard, #09-3063, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 24642 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
Prisoner's complaint concerning the confiscation
of his electric razor failed to establish a violation of due process, his right
to privacy, the Fourth Amendment, or deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need. He failed to allege any facts about the supposed seriousness of
his skin condition or why an electric razor was medically needed in light of
that condition. There were adequate post-deprivation remedies for the loss of
property under prison grievance and internal review procedures. Barr v. Knauer,
#08-3660, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 7766 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
In a prisoner's lawsuit under the Federal Tort
Claims Act concerning the alleged loss of his personal property, he failed to
adequately establish a right to recover damages from either the U.S government
or a delivery service, even if all his allegations were true. Johnson v.
U.S.A., #08-20369, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 7977 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
A prisoner being transferred to another facility
following his participation in an investigation of drug smuggling was told that
his property would be secured, but was not allowed to personally pack it. He
claimed that his personal effects, containing contact information, was lost and
somehow came into the possession of prisoners who were targeted in the
investigation, resulting in threats to his spouse. Defendant prison employees
were entitled to qualified immunity from liability when there was no showing
that they acted with deliberate indifference to the plaintiff prisoner's
safety. Indeed, they arranged the transfer itself because of concerns for his
safety. Frasier v. Fox, No. 08-50072, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 26015 (Unpub. 5th
Cir.).
Prisoner adequately alleged that a correctional
officer seized and destroyed his family photographs from his cell in
retaliation for grievances that he had filed or threatened to file against the
officer. The court rejected his cruel and unusual punishment, equal protection,
and due process claims. Olmsted v. Sherman, No.08-cv-439, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis
67391 (W.D. Wis.).
Prison officials failed to show that a regulation
under which they confiscated a prisoner's magazine tear-outs of photographs was
rationally related to legitimate objectives. The photo tear-outs were
confiscated because they came from the prisoner's magazines, while, had those
photos been part of a clipped article that arrived in the mail to the prisoner,
they would not have been confiscated. The prisoner, therefore, could pursue his
First Amendment claim, but the defendant officials were entitled to qualified
immunity on a claim for damages because they acted pursuant to official prison
policies, and those policies were not "patently" in violation of
established constitutional rights. Brown v. Mason, No. 06-35766, 2008 U.S. App.
Lexis 16725 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
After a Pennsylvania correctional official heard
that prison inmates around the country were allegedly filing fraudulent liens
and judgments against prison officials and prosecutors, the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections (DOC) declared all Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)
forms, documents concerning UCC filings, and related materials and
publications to be contraband. Acting under that declaration, correctional
officers allegedly confiscated a variety of legal materials from the plaintiff
inmates, while subsequently allowing them to retrieve documents and
publications not covered by the declaration. A federal appeals court ruled that
the inmates failed to show that these actions violated the inmates
constitutional right of access to the courts, since they did not show that they
suffered any actual injury to legitimate legal claims. The court also found that
the prisoners had been given meaningful post-deprivation remedies and that
there was a rational relationship between the penological interest furthered
and the method used to further it--the declaration of UCC materials as
contraband. Monroe v. Beard, No. 07-3711, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 15991 (3rd
Cir.).
A prisoner in a private prison in Texas had a
First Amendment right to write to the Wyoming Department of Corrections
Director asking to be returned to Wyoming and complaining about the conditions
of his confinement, and stated a valid claim against seven prison employees
contending that they retaliated against him for doing so. He also asserted a
valid claim for unconstitutional deprivation of his funds by alleging that he
was fined $50 because he testified in another prisoner's disciplinary hearing.
Pfeh v. Freudenthal, No. 07-10312, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 12897 (Unpub. 5th
Cir.).
Prisoner's claims concerning the opening and
reading of his mail by prison authorities was frivolous, as these actions did
not violate his constitutional rights. He also could not pursue a
constitutional claim regarding the alleged deprivation of his SSI benefits
check, because there were adequate post-deprivation remedies available under
Texas state law for deprivations of property. Malone v. Pedigo, No. 07-11025,
2008 U.S. App. Lexis 13006 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
Federal prisoner could not pursue claims against
Bureau of Prisons personnel for confiscation of his property, items of which
they allegedly either failed to return, destroyed, or gave to another prisoner.
An exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2671 for
damage to property detained by law enforcement officers applies to federal
correctional officers, as recently determined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Ali
v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 06-9130, 128 S. Ct. 831 (2008), so that there
was no jurisdiction to hear his claims. That provision, found in 28 U.S.C. Sec.
2680(c), is an exception to the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity. Gordon v. U.S.A.,
No. 06-4961, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 10850 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
California prisoner had no procedural due process
right to a hearing prior to the seizure of property from his cell when the
search he challenged was part of a criminal investigation and there were
adequate post-deprivation remedies available. Mickey v. Skeels, No. 06-15350,
2008 U.S. App. Lexis 6725 (9th Cir.).
Prisoner's claim that some of his property was
negligently placed in a closet for unauthorized property while correctional officers
were making an inventory of his property did not show a violation of due
process, as there was no intentional deprivation. Further, because the property
was not taken for a "public use," there was no viable claim under the
Takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. Whitehurst v. U.S.A., No. 06-40419, 2008
U.S. App. Lexis 9212 (5th Cir.).
A prisoner failed to show that the need to use
some of his allotted personal locker space to store legal materials, resulting
in the unavailability of space for other property, some of which was
confiscated, violated his equal protection rights. There was no showing that
correctional officials treated similarly situated prisoners involved in
litigation differently from other inmates. The space limitations on prison
storage space were "facially neutral" and were not intended to
restrict prisoners' constitutional rights. Guajardo v. Crain, No. 07-50814,
2008 U.S. App. Lexis 8305 (5th Cir.).
A federal prisoner transferred from a facility in
Atlanta, Georgia to one in Kentucky allegedly noticed that a number of items
were missing from his property, which the federal Bureau of Prisons had shipped
to his new facility. He filed a lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act
(FTCA), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1346, seeking recovery of damages. The property involved
included items of religious and nostalgic significance, including two copies of
the Qur'an, a prayer rug, and religious magazines, with an estimated total
value of $177. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an exception to the FTCA's
waiver of sovereign immunity for actions of federal employees, which bars
liability arising from the detention of any property "by any officer of
customs or excise or any other law enforcement officer," 28 U.S.C. Sec.
2680(c), applies to all law enforcement officers, including federal
correctional officers. The Supreme Court therefore upheld the dismissal of the
prisoner's lawsuit. Ali v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 06-9130, 2008 U.S. Lexis
1212.
Because of a discrepancy between an inventory of inmate
property taken at a prior state facility and the inventory taken at a federal
facility to which the inmate was transferred, there was a genuine issue as to
whether the property was "pilfered" while it was in the custody of
federal prison employees, requiring further proceedings on the inmate's claim
under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1346(b)(1) for the loss of
his property, a thermos, a pair of eyeglasses, and a pair of sunglasses. Mathis
v. U.S.A., No. 8:05-3000, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 65611 (D.S.C.).
Seizure without a hearing of prisoner's materials
concerning fantasy role-playing games, on the basis that materials of this sort
had the potential of promoting "gang mentality and an interest in
escape" did not violate either prisoner's due process of First Amendment
rights. Post-deprivation remedies available were adequate to protect any
possible due process rights, and the prison's policy was reasonably related to
curbing gang activity and protecting institutional safety and security. Singer
v. Frank, No. 05-C-1040, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 55663 (E.D. Wis.).
Trial court improperly dismissed prisoner's claim
under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1346(b) and 28 U.S.C. Sec.
2680(a)-(n) seeking damages for a correctional officer's alleged negligent loss
of his property while he was being transferred to a new cell. The federal
appeals court rejected the trial court's ruling that 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680(c), in
stating an exception to liability under the Act for the detention of goods
"by any officer of customs or excise or any other law enforcement
officer" applied to actions of a correctional officer. That section, the
appeals court ruled, in the phrase "any other law enforcement
officer," only references law enforcement officers who are
"functioning in a capacity akin to that of a customs or excise
officer." The plaintiff's claim, therefore, was not barred by Sec.
2680(c), so further proceedings were required. ABC v. DEF, No. 06-1362, 2007
U.S. App. Lexis 21155 (2nd Cir.).
Based on the items listed on a property inventory
form signed by the plaintiff prisoner when he was placed in isolation, he
failed to show that any property listed there was not later returned to him as
he claimed. The prisoner failed to show that the items he claimed were lost or
stolen when he was transferred to isolation were delivered to the defendant
department. Eubank v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. and Correction, Case No.
2006-07210-AD, 2007 Ohio Misc. Lexis 169 (Ct. of Claims).
An Ohio prison did not have the duties or liabilities
of an "insurer" with respect to an inmate's property, but rather only
had a duty to make a reasonable attempt to protect it. A state administrative
regulation which provided that items of property in excess of permitted quantities
possessed by an inmate was "minor contraband" which could be
destroyed after the issuance of a forfeiture order by a court justified the
destruction of four boxes of the inmate's property which were over the 2.4
cubic foot limit on property imposed by the prison. Triplett v. Southern Ohio
Correctional Facility, No. 06AP-1296, 2007 Ohio App, Lexis 2333 (Ohio App. 10th
Dist.).
Ohio prisoner failed to show that the alleged
failure to transfer all of his legal work product at once when he was transferred
to a new facility, because the property he had exceeded the institution's
volume restrictions for prisoner property, caused him recoverable damages.
Additionally, his claims for mental distress and "extraordinary"
damages for simple negligence due to property loss could not result in recovery
of damages under Ohio law. Britford v. Pickaway Correctional Inst., No.
2006-05047-AD, 2007 Ohio Misc. Lexis 127 (Ohio Ct. of Claims).
Georgia prisoner could not recover damages for
the alleged loss of his radio headphones and adapter from his cell under
theories of either negligence or intentional theft. Simple negligence was
insufficient to support a claim for a federal civil rights violation, and,
because the State of Georgia provides adequate post-deprivation remedies for
the loss of property, he also could not recover damages under 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1983 for violation of his constitutional rights. Brown v. Ammon, No.
1:07-cv-60, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 25736 (M.D. Ga.).
The limited waiver of sovereign immunity
contained in the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2671 et seq. did not
apply to claims concerning the loss of property by a law enforcement officer.
An appeals court upheld the trial court's determination that, in a federal
inmate's lawsuit against federal prison officials for the alleged taking of his
mail and personal property, federal prison officials constituted "other
law enforcement officers," and therefore could not be liability for his
losses. Bruscino v. Pugh, No. 06-1182, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 9136 (10th Cir.).
California prisoner stated a possible First
Amendment claim by alleging that correctional officers confined him to his
quarters and destroyed two of his "recycled art statutes" in
retaliation for his having filed a grievance against two other correctional
officers. The alleged conduct, however, did not violate his Eighth Amendment
rights, and also did not violate his due process rights since he did not have a
liberty interest in avoiding confinement to his quarters, and the destruction
of the statutes, allegedly his property, was not "authorized." Davis
v. Calif. Dept. of Corrections, No. 1:06-cv-01062, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 26507
(E.D. Cal.).
Ohio prison was liable, under state law, for
$192.26 for property a prisoner lost during a transfer from a prison to a
hospital because of negligence, but could not receive further damages for
"mental anguish" he allegedly experienced as a result of the loss.
Britford v. Pickaway Correctional Inst., No. 2006-05055, 2007 Ohio Misc. Lexis
33 (Ohio Ct. of Claims).
Ohio correctional employees properly seized a
prisoner's television set as contraband because his name and inmate number were
not etched on it as required by the prison's policy, and because the set's top
was sanded down. Will v. Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction, Case No.
2005-06813, 2007 Ohio Misc. Lexis 3 (Ohio Ct. of Claims). [N/R]
The federal government, according to a federal
appeals court, has waived immunity for the negligent loss of prisoners'
property by government employees under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 1346(b), and subsequent amendments to the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform
Act, which changed the applicable section of the FTCA, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680(c),
did not alter this. Accordingly, the trial court improperly dismissed a lawsuit
for the value of items of property allegedly lost during a prison
"shakedown." Dahler v. U.S., No. 05-4782, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 664
(7th Cir. January 12, 2007) [N/R]
Prisoner could pursue his claim that Bureau of
Prisons (BOP) officers lost his personal property, since immunity for law
enforcement officers for such losses under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA),
28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680(c) did not apply to those officers. Mendez v. U.S., No.
05-1716, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 76099 (D.N.J.). [N/R]
Prisoner had no legitimate property right in
receiving a money order of funds from the mother of another inmate, when money
sent from the family members of another inmate was considered contraband under
prison rules. Failing to provide him with a pre-deprivation hearing before
confiscating the money order did not violate his due process rights. Steffey v.
Orman, No. 05-7064, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 22237 (10th Cir.). [2006 JP Oct]
Prisoner's lawsuit against Bureau of Prisons
officer claiming that his negligence caused the loss of his property was
improperly dismissed by the trial court. The actions of the officer were not
covered, under these circumstances, by an exception, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680(c), to
the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1346 and 2671-2680, waiver of
sovereign immunity. Bureau of Prison officers are not "law enforcement
officers" for purposes of Sec. 2680(c)'s exception to the waiver of
sovereign immunity, the court ruled. U.S. v. Andrews, No. 04-7269, 441 F.3d 220
(4th Cir. 2006) [N/R]
Illinois correctional officials could properly
recover, under a state statute, $124,191.22 as reimbursement for the cost of a
prisoner's incarceration from the value of an annuity he bought with the
proceeds of an insurance policy on the life of his mother, less a $2,000
statutory exemption. The fact that the annuity was bought with the proceeds of
a life insurance policy did not make the annuity exempt from collection
efforts. The court further found that because the inmate was not a dependent of
his mother when she died, an exemption under state law for insurance proceeds
paid to a dependent also did not apply. The fact that the prisoner himself had
dependents also did not alter the state's ability to seize the annuity. People
Ex. Rel. Director of Corrections v. Ruckman, No. 5-05-0132, 843 N.E.2d 882
(Ill. App. 5th Dist. 2006). [N/R]
North Dakota state prison rules prohibiting
inmates from possessing property, such as religious magazines, received from other
prisoners, and classifying such "passed-on" property as contraband,
upheld as reasonable. Larson v. Schuetzle, No. 20050418, 712 N.W.2d 617 (N.D.
2006). [2006 JB Aug]
A correctional officer employed by the federal
Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is not a "law enforcement officer" within the
meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) section, 28 U.S.C. 2680(c) which
excludes from the Act's waiver of sovereign immunity claims for the
"detention of goods" by any officer of customs or excise "or any
other law enforcement officer." As a result, the trial court improperly
dismissed a FTCA lawsuit by a prisoner for the loss of his property which he
claimed was caused by the negligence of a BOP officer. Andrews v. U.S., No.
04-7269, 441 F.3d 220 (4th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
A federal prisoner's failure to exhaust available
administrative remedies, as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997(e) prior to filing
a lawsuit was excused because of the prison's failure to inform him of a new
appeals procedure. His lawsuit seeking $113.40 in damages for personal property
allegedly lost during a transfer to a new facility, therefore, rather than
being dismissed, would merely be stayed while the prisoner continued with the
administrative appeals process. Campbell v. Chaves, #04-78, 402 F. Supp. 2d
1101 (D. Ariz. 2005). [N/R]
Even if alleged confiscation of federal
prisoner's art supplies violated a Bureau of Prisons' regulation, this was
insufficient to state a claim for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28
U.S.C. Sec. 2680(a), since the discretionary function exception to the statute
applied. The regulation itself made discretionary decisions regarding the
removal and disposal of art and hobbycraft items. Terrell v. Hawk, No. 05-2642,
154 Fed. Appx. 280 (3rd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Federal government was entitled to sovereign
immunity in prisoner's lawsuit claiming that his books and manuscript, mailed
to his home by prison officials, were lost. While he claimed that this was due
to negligence by the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and post office, an
exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1346(b),
2680(b) for "loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or
postal matters" barred liability. Georgacarakos v. U.S., No. 04-1363, 420
F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner could not pursue federal civil rights
claim against a correctional officer for depriving him of property by taking a
check from his legal mail and putting it into his inmate trust fund account
against his wishes. The prisoner failed to show that he had attempted to pursue
state law post-deprivation remedies, or that they were inadequate in any way.
McMillan v. Fielding, No. 04-5745, 136 Fed. Appx. 818 (6th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner who repeatedly refused to comply
with a prison rule concerning storage of his personal property when he left his
cell was not subjected to cruel and unusual punishment when he missed 75
showers and between 300-350 meals in an 18-month period as a consequence of his
defiance. Appeals court reasoned that the prisoner punished himself, knowing
that the consequence of failing to comply with the rule, which he did not
challenge the validity of, was being barred from leaving his cell to take
showers or go to the cafeteria. Rodriguez v. Briley, No. 04-1554, 2005 U.S.
App. Lexis 6152 (7th Cir.). [2005 JB Jun]
Federal prisoner stated a viable claim against
the U.S. government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. Sec.
2675(a), for the alleged wrongful confiscation and destruction of his property
by a prison employee. The claim that the prison employee did not follow federal
prison regulations in destroying the property before the inmate had a chance to
establish his ownership of it, however, did not state a constitutional due
process claim when the property was seized from the prison's machine shop
rather than the prisoner's cell and the government provided adequate
post-deprivation remedies. Bigbee v. United States, No. 05-C-66, 359 F. Supp.
2d 806 (W.D. Wis. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner failed to exhaust his available
administrative remedies, as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, on his claim that
a correctional officer confiscated his contact lenses because he is homosexual.
While he pursued grievances concerning the contact lenses, he failed to assert
in those grievances that he was a homosexual or that his sexual orientation was
related to the reason why the officer took the actions against him. Goldsmith
v. White, No. 5:04cv72, 357 F. Supp. 2d 1336 (N.D. Fla. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner failed to exhaust his available
administrative remedies, as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, on his claim that
a correctional officer was engaged in racial discrimination in seizing his
property purchased in the prison commissary. While the prisoner prepared a
number of statements about the incident he circulated to prison officials, they
were never property submitted to the warden or other officials as required by
regulations. Additionally, the statements circulated merely summarized the incident
without making any claim of racial discrimination. The prisoner's lawsuit was
therefore properly dismissed. Smith v. Rudicel, No. 04-3462, 123 Fed. Appx. 906
(10th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
A Washington state Department of Corrections rule
which imposed a charge on prisoners for the shipping of their personal property
when they were transferred to a new facility violated a state statute requiring
that an inmate's personal property be delivered to the facility in which they
were incarcerated. Burton v. Lehman, No. 74731-8, 103 P.3d 1230 (Wash.
2005).[N/R]
Utah prisoner failed to show that prison
officials violated his due process rights by allegedly taking certain items of
his personal property, in the absence of any showing that post-deprivation
remedies under state law were inadequate. Federal appeals court also rejects
prisoner's claims that his right of access to the courts was violated, when
there was no showing that the alleged deprivation of requested legal resources
interfered with any attempt to pursue a non-frivolous claim. Harris v.
Chabries, No. 04-4139, 114 Fed. App. 363 (10th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
When Louisiana state law provided a prisoner with
adequate post-deprivation remedies for the alleged loss of his watch and
wedding ring, he could not pursue a federal civil rights lawsuit asserting that
their loss violated his due process rights. Walker v. Horne, No. 04-30287, 114
Fed. Appx. 598 (5th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner did not have an absolute right to be
physically present at the trial of his small claims action against two state
employees for alleged damages to a television set which was his property. While
he had a constitutional right to bring the action, this did not include any
entitlement to be transported to the court or have the trial conducted at the
prison, since he could choose to submit the case to the court through
documentary evidence, obtain someone else to represent him at the trial,
participate in the trial by telephone conference call, or postpone the trial
until he was released from confinement. Niksich v. Cotton, No.
48802-0402-CV-80, 810 N.E.2d 1003 (Ind. 2004). [N/R]
Federal appeals court orders further proceedings
on prisoner's claim that the confiscation of his word processor and radio,
after he submitted letters critical of the prison for mailing, were retaliatory
for his exercise of his First Amendment rights. Confiscation, since it was
carried out under the authority of a prison administrative directive, was not a
random, unauthorized action for which the availability of adequate
post-deprivation state remedies would bar a federal due process claim. Allen v.
Thomas, No. 03-21208, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 20953 (5th Cir. 2004). [2004
JB Nov]
Prisoner was not entitled to relief from
correctional institution's seizure and forfeiture of personal property which
exceeded rules concerning space limitations for such property in his cell.
Prisoner failed to show that the state lacked a "legitimate interest"
in regulating the volume of property kept in prisoner cells, including legal
materials, and the court rejected the argument that he had an unqualified right
to keep all of his legal material in his cell. Prison rules allowed him to keep
legal materials so long as they fit within the 2.4 cubic feet limitation generally
applicable to all personal property kept in inmate cells. In re Application for
Forfeiture of Unauthorized Items Confiscated From Inmates Pursuant to AR
5120-9-55, No. CA2003-05-021, 811 N.E.3d 589 (Ohio App. 12 Dist. 2004). [N/R]
Dismissal of federal prisoner's claim for alleged
loss of his property due to negligence of prison employees was proper. No such
claim could be brought under Federal Tort Claims Act, and prisoner failed to
exhaust available prison grievance procedure as to any civil rights claim.
Further, mere negligence leading to loss of property cannot be the basis of a
constitutional claim. Steele v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, #02-1492, 355 F.3d
1204 (10th Cir. 2003). [2004 JB May]
Former prisoner could not pursue federal civil rights
claim over personal property allegedly taken from him and not returned to him
when he was released from county jail when Indiana state law provided adequate
procedures for asserting claims for losses of property caused by state
employees. Batchelder v. Arnold, 291 F. Supp. 2d 820 (N.D. Ind. 2003). [N/R]
Federal correctional officers were exempt from
liability for damages to prisoner's eyeglasses, sent to prison laundry in
pocket of his coat, during move from his former cell to administrative segregation.
Under Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680, officers were
entitled to immunity under "detention of goods" exception to
liability, even though they were not aware that the eyeglasses were in their
possession. Bramwell v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, #02-55516, 348 F.3d 804 (9th
Cir. 2003). [N/R]
New York prisoner was entitled to file a late
claim against the state for the alleged loss of his personal property during
his transfer to a new correctional facility when his earlier timely, although
improperly served, claim gave the state notice that he intended to pursue
litigation, so that no prejudice to the state would occur. Wright v. State of
New York, 760 N.Y.S.2d 634 (Ct. Cl. 2003). [N/R]
Prison "mailbox" rule applied in
determining whether a prisoner submitted a timely contest of the administrative
forfeiture of his van by the FBI. The prisoner's papers contesting the
forfeiture were filed when he delivered them to prison officials, not when it
was received by the FBI. Appeals court reverses summary judgment in favor of
the government in prisoner's challenge to the forfeiture. Longenette v.
Krusing, No. 00-3690, 322 F.3d 758 (3rd Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner's failure to exhaust available
administrative remedies for the alleged confiscation of his property required
the dismissal without prejudice of his federal civil rights claim alleging that
the seizure of his sexually explicit materials violated his First Amendment
rights. McMillian v. Litscher, No. 99-3029, 72 Fed. Appx. 438 (7th Cir. 2003).
[N/R]
Prisoner's claims for compensation for personal
property that correctional officers allegedly destroyed were barred when
prisoner failed to show that he had exhausted available administrative remedies
as required under the terms of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1997e(a). Khan v. U.S., 271 F. Supp. 2d 409 (E.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
Texas prisoner's failure to file a claim for
damages to his personal property by a prison employee searching his cell before
the 31st day after he received a written decision from the department's written
grievance system required dismissal of his lawsuit under a state statute
governing inmate litigation. V.T.C.A. Civil Practice & Remedies Code Sec.
14.005(b). Lewis v. Johnson, No. 13-01-770-CV, 97 S.W.3d 885 (Tex. App. 2003).
[N/R]
Indiana prisoner had a state constitutional right
to pursue a small claims action seeking compensation for prison employees'
alleged damage to his color television set, but had no right to an order that
he be transported to the court hearing. Normal trial rules testing the legal
sufficiency of the complaint did not apply to small claims proceeding. Niksich
v. Cotton, No.48A02-0210-CV-851, 793 N.E.2d 1189 (Ind. App. 2003). [N/R]
Indiana prisoner's claim that state officials
took away his watch were not sufficient to state a federal civil rights claim
when there were adequate remedies under state law for the loss of personal
property. Craft v. Mann, 265 F. Supp. 2d 970 (N.D. Ind. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner failed to show a "reasonable
factual basis" that a correctional officer had him put on strip cell
status to gain access to his personal property and confiscate it. Officer's
actions were within the scope of his employment and helped maintain order and
discipline in the facility, so he was entitled to immunity under state statute.
Higgason v. State, #77A05-02208-CV-362, 789 N.E.2d 22 (Ind. App. 2003).[N/R]
Illinois prison officials failed to prove that
plaintiff prisoner failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies on
his federal civil rights lawsuit asserting that they violated his
constitutional rights by failing to ship 99 boxes, containing over 2,800 pounds
of his property to California after he was transferred there. Prisoner stated
that he did not know, until after his transfer, that the material would not be
shipped, and it was "doubtful" that he could use Illinois
administrative remedies once he was in a California prison. Prisoner's federal
lawsuit was barred, however, by his prior Illinois state court mandamus action
seeking to force the shipment of the boxes, in which the state court had
rejected his claim. Walker v. Page, No. 00-3990, 59 Fed. Appx. 896 (7th Cir.
2003). [N/R]
Ohio prisoner had no constitutional right to a typewriter
to begin with, and therefore had no right to retain a memory typewriter with a
five page memory, which had earlier been permitted, after state correctional
officials altered the rules to only permit typewriters with a one-line memory
or less. McClintick v. Lazaroff, #2002-1771, 786 N.E.2d 1284 (Ohio. 2003).
[N/R]
Ban on possession of electric or electronic
instruments in federal prisons (except for use in religious activities) did not
violate prisoners' First Amendment rights. Bureau of Prisons acted reasonably
in interpreting a statute barring the use of appropriated federal funds
"for use or possession" of such instruments as allowing a prohibition
on the possession of the items. Kimberline v. U.S. Department of Justice, No.
01-5387, 318 F.3d 228 (D.C. Cir. 2003). [2003 JB May]
Trial court should have set forth, in its
decision, specific factual and legal grounds for the dismissal of a prisoner's
lawsuit against a correctional officer who testified before the state court of
claims that the prisoner's shoes were not actually taken from him. At the same
time, given that the prisoner ultimately received damages from the court of
claims for his shoes, the lawsuit was properly dismissed as frivolous, and the
trial court's failure to set forth its reasons did not require further
proceedings under the circumstances. Ward v. Cliver, No. 30493, 575 S.E.2d 263
(W. Va. 2002). [N/R]
Native American prisoner's claims that his First
Amendment religious rights and his due process rights were violated when his
religious property, including fur and feathers, were destroyed by the
"unauthorized act" of a prison employee were properly dismissed as
frivolous. Due process claim regarding his property was barred because there
was an adequate post-deprivation remedy for the loss of the property under
Indiana state law. His religious freedom claim was barred because he did not
allege that the confiscation of the property restricted his exercise of his
religious beliefs or that the prison employee acted because of the religious
nature of the items or to discriminate against his Native American religion.
O'Banion v. Anderson, #01-4201, 50 Fed. Appx. 775 (7th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Federal civil rights claim over damage to
television set mailed to inmate was properly dismissed because the plaintiff
had an adequate state remedy available to him to address this alleged
deprivation. The plaintiff prisoner's claim was also properly dismissed as
frivolous for seeking $1.4 billion for the loss. Plaintiff prisoner also failed
to show that he had exhausted available administrative remedies. Dunlap v.
Fulghum, #01-6373, 35 Fed. Appx. 163 (6th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit, along with
Texas state Tort Claims Act claim, over the loss of two pairs of sunglasses was
properly dismissed as frivolous. Prisoner's declaration that he was able to pay
the filing fee and intended to pay it, did not exempt him from the screening
process for frivolous lawsuits applied to complaints filed by paupers when he did
not actually ever pay the fee. Johnson v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
#08-01-00247-CV, 71 S.W.2d 492 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2002). [N/R]
Provisions of Federal Tort Claims Act do not
waive the federal government's immunity from suit for a prison guard's alleged
wrongful detention of prisoner property. Prisoner also could not pursue civil
rights lawsuit over failure to return property, when adequate administrative
post-deprivation remedies were available. Rendelman v. United States of America,
#99-56858, 32 Fed. Appx. 804 (9th Cir. 2002). [2002 JB Aug]
Sending notice of a proposed forfeiture of
property to an incarcerated prisoner via certified mail in care of the prison
where he was incarcerated is adequate to satisfy due process of law when the
prison had a procedure for delivering mail to inmates; the government must only
attempt to provide actual notice, there is no requirement that actual notice
must be received. Dusenbery v. United States, No. 00-6567, 2002 U.S. LEXIS 401.
[2002 JB Feb]
296:118 Neither the
state nor a state employee can be liable for damage to a prisoner's property
under applicable North Dakota law. Vogel v. Braun, No. 20000193, 622 N.W.2d 216
(N.D. 2001).
292:58 Illinois
prisoner had no vested right to continue to possess any particular quantity of
personal property in his cell; court upholds prison rule restricting inmate
property to what would fit in a storage box of a particular size. Ashley v.
Snyder, #4-99-0712, 739 N.E.2d 897 (Ill. App. 2000).
283:106
Prisoner's claim that his property had been lost or destroyed during a prison
riot could not be the subject of a federal civil rights lawsuit when he failed
to pursue an available administrative appeal from the denial of his
administrative grievance over the items. Feliciano v. Servicios Correccionales,
79 F. Supp. 2d 31 (D. Puerto Rico 2000).
280:54 Changing
the amount of property, including both hobby materials and legal materials,
which prisoners could keep in their cells did not violate prisoners' due
process or equal protection rights; appeals court also finds no violation of
the right of access to the courts. Cosco v. Uphoff, #99-8036, 195 F.3d 1221
(10th Cir. 1999).
283:104 Georgia
prisoner could not pursue a civil lawsuit against county sheriff seeking return
of unidentified property when it had already been determined, in his criminal
proceeding, that no such property was being held; trial court's order barring
all future civil filings by prisoner as frivolous, however, went too far and
violated his right of access to the courts. Hooper v. Harris, 512 S.E.2d 312
(Ga. App. 1999).
[N/R]
Correctional officials were not liable for allegedly inadequate response to
prisoner's grievance over his stolen radio; correctional officials were not
liable in federal civil rights case for allegedly depriving plaintiff prisoner
of his cassette tape, alarm clock, and legal documents since state law provided
adequate remedies. Harksen v. Garratt, 29 F.Supp.2d 265 (E.D. Va. 1998).
237:132
Prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit against Louisiana prison officials was
correctly dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; prisoner
could not be allowed to avoid exhaustion requirement by filing a late
administrative grievance after it was time barred, and then using
unavailability at that time of administrative process to justify filing suit.
Marsh v. Jones, 53 F.3d 707 (5th Cir. 1995).
236:119
Destruction of inmate's beard trimmer, received in the mail, without prior
hearing on whether it was contraband, did not violate his due process rights
when there were adequate state-law post-deprivation remedies available to seek
compensation for his property. Diaz v. Coughlin, 909 F.Supp. 146 (S.D.N.Y.
1995). [Cross-reference: Mail].
222:86 Ohio
prison was not liable for destruction of prisoner's radio taken out of his cell
by correctional employee during prisoner disturbance and riot. Vanhook v.
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 643 N.E.2d 617 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 1994).
222:87 Mississippi
state law provided prisoner with an adequate postdeprivation remedy for the
alleged loss of his property; fact that state law required even indigents to
prepay costs for appeals in civil lawsuits did not violate prisoner's due
process rights. Nickens v. Melton, 38 F.3d 183 (5th Cir. 1994).
227:166
Correctional officer who confiscated inmate's property and gave him signed
receipts for items was liable for $500 for value of items when they could not
be found to be returned to inmate; Mississippi Supreme Court overturns,
however, punitive damages award of $1,000 when there was no proof that officer
converted property to his own use or acted maliciously.
218:24 Funds
paid to prison inmates for award in federal civil rights lawsuit could be seized
by state and paid to victims of their crimes under Iowa victim restitution
statute; federal appeals court rules that federal civil rights law does not
preempt the statute. Beeks v. Hundley, 34 F.3d 658 (8th Cir. 1994).
220:52 Missouri
prison regulation prohibiting individual interest bearing accounts for inmate
funds did not violate prisoner's constitutional rights. Mitchell v. Kirk, 20
F.3d 936 (8th Cir. 1994).
Oklahoma inmate
could not use trust fund account to pay for criminal appeal, but court also
rules that such funds can not be considered in determining whether inmate was a
pauper entitled to waiver of court fees and appointment of free attorney.
McMullin v. Dept. of Corrections, 863 P.2d 1187 (Okla. 1993).
Illinois
prisoner could not recover damages in federal civil rights lawsuit for the
alleged loss of his property after cell shakedown searches; state provides
adequate post-deprivation remedy by allowing prisoners to sue state in state
Court of Claims. Stewart v. McGinnis, 5 F.3d 1031 (7th Cir. 1993).
Confiscation of
state-issued T-shirts from prisoner's cell during shakedown did not violate due
process or constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Ladd v. Davies, 817 F.Supp.
81 (D. Kan. 1993).
Nevada state
statute created a constitutionally protected property right in interest earned
on inmate funds held by prison; failure to credit interest to prisoner's
account violated his due process rights, federal appeals court holds. Tellis v.
Godinez, 5 F.3d 1314 (9th Cir. 1993).
Regulations
forbidding prison inmates to place their funds in private interest-bearing
accounts did not violate prisoners' constitutional rights. Foster v. Hughes,
979 F.2d 130 (8th cir. 1992).
Wisconsin
Supreme Court holds that inmate need not exhaust state administrative remedies
before filing a federal civil rights claim in state court over the failure to
put funds from a check in his inmate account. Casteel v. Vaade, 481 N.W.2d 476
(Wis. 1992).
Money concealed
on Christmas card sent to inmate was not contraband that could be confiscated
when funds were discovered in prison mail room prior to delivery to prisoner.
Exum v. Dugger, 591 So.2d 1088 (Fla. App. 1992). Correctional rule requiring
inmates to designate disposition of excess property or else have it disposed of
by prison authorities violated Arizona state statute requiring prisoner
property to be stored and returned to prisoners upon their release. Blum v.
State, 829 P.2d 1247 (Ariz. App. 1992).
Confiscation of
property not allowed in disciplinary segregation did not violate prisoner's
rights even though disciplinary action imposing such segregation was later
overturned; confiscation took place after a hearing and post- deprivation
remedies were adeqaute; confiscation of cigarettes was not "deliberate
indifference to a basic human need." Addison v. Pash, 961 F.2d 731 (8th
Cir. 1992).
Policy of
deducting charges from inmate trust account to pay for nonemergency medical
visit did not violate prisoner's rights; "predeprivation hearing" was
not required before freezing inmate account or deducting medical charges. Scott
v. Angelone, 771 F.Supp. 1064 (D. Nev. 1991).
Warden's
decision to deprive prisoner of his television set and personal computer
because of refusal to sign an "individual performance plan" agreeing
to keep himself and cell clean did not violate prisoner's rights. Jensen v.
Powers, 472 N.W.2d 223 (N.D. 1991).
Prison officials
were not liable for theft of inmate's property, in absence of allegation that
they themselves stole it. Warden v. Thigpen, 563 So.2d 1021 (Ala. 1991).
Funds in
inmate's prison account could be used to satisfy judgment against him by Crime
Victims' Compensation Fund. Nitcher v. Dept. of Corr. & Human Res., 785
S.W.2d 334 (Mo. App. 1990).
Michigan
prisoners had a protected property interest in possessing computers in their
cells, but were not entitled to a hearing on denial of that interest. Spruyette
v. Dept. of Corrections, 459 N.W.2d 52 (Mich. App. 1990).
Prison could
properly refuse inmate permission to receive a typewriter worth over $200.
Blades v. Twomey, 553 N.Y.S.2d 215 (A.D. 1990).
Prisoner could
sue officials for freezing, without hearing, his prison account to pay for
transportation expenses from another prison. Gillihan v. Shillinger, 872 F.2d
935 (10th Cir. 1989).
Rule requiring
inmates' excess property to be disposed of after 90 days storage upheld.
Nitcher v. Armontrout, 778 S.W. 231 (Mo. App. 1989).
Inmate serving
life sentence can be required, to contribute to "gate money" fund.
Richards v. Cullen, 442 N.W.2d 574 (Wis. App. 1989).
Inmate's
admitted escape was an abandonment of personal property left behind; prison
employees had complete defense to suit for negligent or intentional failure to safeguard
property. Herron v. Whiteside, 782 S.W.2d 414 (Mo. App. 1989).
No statutory or
constitutional violations alleged in property loss suit. Wheat v. Texas Dept.
of Corrections, 715 S.W.2d 362 (Tex. App. 1986).
Social security
benefits suspended. Jones v. Heckler, 774 F.2d 997 (10th Cir. 1985). Inmate who
assaulted fellow inmate must pay state medical expenses. Ruley v. Nevada Bd. of
Prison Com'rs., 628 F.Supp. 108 (D. Nev. 1986).
Prisoner alleges
valid claim that guards destroyed legal papers. Carter v. Hutto, 781 F.2d 1028
(4th Cir. 1986).
Dismissal of
inmate's small claim action against sheriff for not returning his property was
abuse of discretion. Johnson v. Scott, 702 P.2d 56 (Okla. 1985).
Prison
reimbursement act calling for liens on inmate property to defray costs of
confinement applies to all inmates of state prison system. State Treasurer v.
Wilson, 377 N.W.2d 703 (Mich. 1985).
Sheriff and law
enforcement officers are forbidden to accept property from prisoners. Hazen v.
Pasley, 768 F.2d 226 (8th Cir. 1985).
Police
Department rightfully seized arrestees' money and gave it to proper owners.
Moore v. Beauregard Parish Sheriff, 471 So.2d 1083 (La. App. 1985).
Prison personnel
cannot withdraw inmate's funds for payment to sheriff for damages. Quick v.
Jones, 754 F.2d 1521 (9th Cir. 1985).
Inmate properly
disciplined for possessing money. Coleman v. Coombe, 485 N.Y.S.2d 587 (A.D. 3
Dept. 1985).
State remedies
available for loss of property. Brooks v. Dutton, 751 F.2d 197 (6thCir. 1985).
Prisoner's
refusal to attend hearing grounds to dismiss his complaint for property
conversion. Godlen v. Newsome, 322 S.E.2d 314 (Ga. 1984).
Although mail
policy may have been unconstitutional, it was not the cause of lost material.
Sims v. Wyrick, 743 F.2d 607 (8th Cir. 1984).
No immunity for
loss of parolee's property. Fearon v. State of Cal. Dept. of Corrs., 209
Cal.Rptr. 309 (App. 1984).
Prison liable
for losing inmate's property. Hyorth v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections, 460
So.2d 22 (La. 1984).
Inmate properly
convicted of swindling inmate. State v. Deans, 356 N.W.2d 674 (Minn. 1984).
No rights to
pre-seizure hearing when radio was confiscated. Shabazz v. Odum, 591 F.Supp.
1513 (M.D. Pa. 1984).
Inmates' money
properly seized during search. Harris v. Forsyth, 735 F.2d 1235 (11th Cir.
1984).
State immunity
for officials leaves inmate inadequate state remedy for property loss: Section
1983 suit to continue. Harper v. Scott, 577 F.Supp. 15 (E.D. Mich. 1984).
Property
restrictions upheld. Lyon v. Farrier, 730 F.2d 525 (8th Cir. 1984).
State action
required for inmate's property claims. Kidd v. Bradley, 578 F.Supp. 275 (N.D.
W. Va. 1984).
Inmate awarded
$500 for missing jewelry during a shakedown search. Price v. Harris, 722 F.2d
427 (8th Cir. 1983).
Prison officials
properly confiscated inmate's property he possessed in violation of rules.
McWhorter v. Jones, 573 F.Supp. 33 (E.D. Tenn. 1983).
Inmate's suit
alleging his typewriter wa snot returned to him to proceed; administrators
dismissed as defendants. Reiman v. Solem, 337 N.W.2d 804 (S.D. 1983).
Remedy lies in
state court for deprivation of property not federal court. Tydings v. Dept. of
Corr., 714 F.2d 11 (4th Cir. 1983).
No section 1983
action could be maintained against officials who mistakenly took prisoner's TV
set and delayed its return. Phelps v. Anderson and Langford, 700 F.2d 147 (4th
Cir. 1983).
Possible
liability of guard for search and destruction of inmate property. Palmer v.
Hudson, 697 F.2d 1220 (4th Cir. 1983).
Inmate must
amend his complaint to specifically state how officials deprived him of his
property. Harold v. Smith, 561 F.Supp. 416 (E.D. Pa. 1983).
No liability for
removal of electronic equipment from inmate's cell; nor for failure to provide
a specialized electronics training program. Peck v. South Dakota Penitentiary,
332 N.W.2d 714 (S.D. 1983).
No liability for
inmate's missing property. Tydings v. Dept. of Corrections, 714 F.2d 11 (4th
Cir. 1983).
No civil rights
liability to sheriff for inmate's loss of property during his six weeks
confinement in county jail; inmate must sue in state court. Bynum v. Kidd, 570
F.Supp. 696 (W.D. N.C. 1983).
Sheriff could be
liable for taking plaintiff's money at time of arrest. Coleman v. Faulkner, 697
F.2d 1347 (10th Cir. 1982).
Inmate claimed
prison pharmacy assistant forced another inmate to sell his boat; official's
refusal to return boat ruled not a violation of constitution. Daily v. Sutton,
535 F.Supp. 1192 (M.D. Ala. 1982).
Section 1983 not
applicable to inmate's claim of property loss by negligence of prison
officials; state remedies to redress his loss were adequate. Parratt v. Taylor,
451 U.S. 527, 101 S.Ct. 1908 (1981).
Virginia Federal
Court tells inmat to sue in state court for recovery of lost or stolen watch.
Whorley v. Karr, 534 F.Supp. 88 (W.D. Va. 1981).
Pennsylvania
District Court rules that confiscated of contraband money discovered during
routine cell search did not violate due process. Lowery v. Cuyler, 521 F.Supp.
430 (E.D. Pa. 1981).
First Circuit
rules that malicious destruction of radio and harassment for filing suit stated
valid claims under the civil rights act. Ferranti v. Moran, 618 F.2d 888 (1st
Cir. 1980).
Connecticut
federal court spells out rules for confiscating material during shakedowns;
awards inmate $475 for legal materials taken. Steinberg v. Taylor, 500 F.Supp.
477 (D. Conn. 1980).
Confiscation may
amount to unconstitutional misappropriation of inmate's personal property,
Colorado federal court rules. Taylor v. Leidig, 484 F.Supp. 1330 (D. Colo.
1980).
Seventh Circuit
upholds prison regulation restricting inmate possession of nude photographs.
Trapnell v. Riggsby, 622 F.2d 290 (7th Cir. 1980).
Federal court
upholds prison policy limiting the buying and selling of property between
inmates. Velarde v. Ricketts, 480 F.Supp. 261 (10th Cir. 1979).
Injunctive
action permitted against social worker but not county for social worker's
confiscation of prisoner's legal papers. Tyler v. Woodson, 597 F.2d 643 (8th
Cir. 1979).
Warden held not
liable for inmate's property allegedly taken during riot and stored in
warehouse but not returned after riot was over. Smith v. Alkcom, 257 S.E.2d 530
(Ga. 1979).
Federal Court
upholds Virginia prison regulation authorizing confiscation of inmate's money.
Hanvey v. Robinson, 474 F.Supp. 1349 (W.D. Va. 1979).
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu