AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Monthly Law Journal Article: Legal Issues Pertaining to Inmate Property, 2008 (3) AELE Mo. L.J. 301.
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