Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

ROBERT JACKSON, Plaintiff v. JOHN ROWLEY, et al., Defendants

William Quarles

MEMORANDUM

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs Complaint, filed pursuant to 42 US C. § 1983 wherein he states that in January of 2008, his television and fan were improperly confiscated by correctional Officer Nave. Plaintiff further states that in March of2008, the Warden dismissed Plaintiffs request for administrative remedy concerning the confiscated property and subsequently the property was destroyed ECF No 1. Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) which shall be granted.

In the case of lost or stolen property, sufficient due process is afforded to a prisoner if he has access to an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Parrait v. Taylor, 451 U. S. 527,542-44(1981), overruled on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U. S. 327 (1986). The right to seek damages and injunctive relief in Maryland courts constitutes an adequate post deprivation remedy. See Juncker v. Tinney, 549 F. Supp. 574, 579 (D. Md. 1982). Thus, the complaint presented here shall be dismissed under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See Neilzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319. 325 (1989); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992); Cochran v. Morris, 73 F.3d 1310, 1315 (4th Cir. 1996); Nasim v. Warden, 64 F.3d 951,955 (4th Cir. 1995).

Plaintiff may avail himself of remedies under the Maryland Tort Claims Act and through the Inmate Grievance Office.

Although Juncker dealt with personal injury rather than property loss, its analysis and conclusion that sufficient due process is afforded through post deprivation remedies available in the Maryland courts also applies to cases of lost or stolen property, given Juncker's reliance on Parrali in dismissing plaintiffs due process claim.
--------

Plaintiff is hereby notified that he may be barred from filing future suits in forma pauperis if he continues to file federal civil rights actions that are subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted under §1915(e) or under F.R.Civ P. 12(b)(6).

A separate Order follows.

______________________


William Quarles, Jr.


United States District Judge


Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Jackson v. Rowley
(Jul 17, 2012)