United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Oxford Division
JAMES E. OTIS PLAINTIFF
v.
TIMOTH OUTLAW DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
NEAL
B. BIGGERS SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
This
matter comes before the court on the pro se prisoner
complaint of James E. Otis, who challenges the conditions of
his confinement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the purposes
of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the court notes that the
plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed this suit. The
plaintiff has brought the instant case under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, which provides a federal cause of action against
“[e]very person” who under color of state
authority causes the “deprivation of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and
laws.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff alleges
that during a shakedown of his prison unit, someone took his
gold wedding ring. For the reasons set forth below, the
instant case will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Factual
Allegations
On
February 10, 2016, at approximately 8:50 a.m., at the
Marshall County Correctional Facility, Corrections Officers
Davis and Benson ordered the inmates out of C-Unit, Pod 1 for
a shakedown of the unit. James Otis, the plaintiff complied,
but when he returned to his unit, his wedding band was
missing from his trunk. He inquired about the ring but could
not determine who might have taken it. He then filed a
grievance, but did not recover his ring. He seeks an order
from this court that prison officials either return his
original ring (which he has worn for 36 years) - or to
replace it.
Taking
of Property Without Due Process of Law
Though
the court sympathizes with Mr. Otis regarding the loss of an
item of great sentimental value, the allegations of his
complaint do not state a constitutional claim. The random and
unauthorized deprivation of a prisoner's property by a
state actor does not violate the prisoner's due process
rights if the state provides an adequate post-deprivation
remedy. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533
(1984); Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 541-44
(1981), overruled in part by Daniels v. Williams,
474 U.S. 327, 330-31 (1986). This rule, the Paratt/Hudson
doctrine, provides “that no constitutional claim may be
asserted by a plaintiff who was deprived of his liberty or
property by negligent or intentional conduct of public
officials, unless the state procedures under which those
officials acted are unconstitutional or state law fails to
afford an adequate post-deprivation remedy for their
conduct.” Martin v. Dallas County, Tex., 822
F.2d 553, 555 (5th Cir. 1987); see also Hudson, 486
U.S. at 533, Daniels, 474 U.S. at 330-31; White
v. Epps, 411 Fed.Appx. 731 (5th Cir. 2011). Thus, the
initial question before the court as to the plaintiff's
claim regarding the taking of his property is whether
Mississippi law affords him an adequate post-deprivation
remedy for his loss.
In most
circumstances, suits against the Mississippi government would
be controlled by the Mississippi Tort Claims Act, Miss. Code
Ann. § 11-46-9 (“MTCA”), which became
effective on April 1, 1993. As to suits filed by prisoners,
the MTCA states:
(1) A governmental entity and its employees acting and within
the course scope of their employment or duties shall not be
liable for any claim:
(m) Of any claimant who at the time the claim arises is an
inmate of any detention center, jail, workhouse, penal farm,
penitentiary or other such institution, regardless of whether
such claimant is or is not an inmate of any detention center,
jail, workhouse, penal farm, penitentiary or other such
institution when the claim is filed.
Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-9(1)(m). At first blush, this
statute would seem to foreclose any remedies the plaintiff
may have under state law. However, the plaintiff's remedy
for the taking of property arises directly from the
Constitution of the State of Mississippi, which cannot be
circumvented through a state statute. Pickering v.
Langston Law Firm, P.A., 88 So.3d 1269 (Miss. 2012). The
unlawful taking of an inmate's property can violate
Article 3, Section 17 of the Constitution of the State of
Mississippi. Bishop v. Reagans, 2012 WL 1804623
(S.D.Miss.), citing Johnson v. King, 85 So.3d 307
(Miss.App., 2012). Article 3, Section 17 of the Mississippi
Constitution reads:
Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public
use, except on due compensation being first made to the owner
or owners thereof, in a manner to be prescribed by law; and
whenever an attempt is made to take private property for a
use alleged to be public, the question whether the
contemplated use by the public shall be a judicial question,
and, as such, determined without regard to legislative
assertion that the use is public.
The
circumstances in Johnson are legally indistinguishable from
those in the instant case. The prison officials in that case
confiscated Johnson's drinking mug and disposed of it.
Johnson v. King, 85 So.3d 307, 311-312 (Miss. App.
2012). Johnson had purchased the mug from the canteen with
his own money. Id. The mug as purchased was not
considered contraband, and Johnson had not modified the mug
in such a way to turn it into contraband. Id. The
Mississippi Court of Appeals held that, under these
circumstances, the taking of Johnson's mug violated the
Mississippi Constitution and that prison officials had to
either replace the mug or compensate Johnson for the fair
value of the mug. Id. Those facts mirror the facts
in the present case, except that the officials in the present
case do not acknowledge that a member of prison staff
actually took Mr. Otis' property. As such, the plaintiff
in this case has an adequate remedy under state law, and his
claims for the taking of his property without due process of
law must be dismissed.
Conclusion
For the
reasons set forth above, the instant case will be dismissed
for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted, counting as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). A final ...