WRIGHT v. SCURGIA
Filing
9
ORDER adopting 5 Report and Recommendation. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE MAURICE M PAUL on 3/3/2014. This case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The dismissal counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (kdm)
Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
JONATHAN CRAIG WRIGHT,
Plaintiff,
v.
CASE NO. 1:13-cv-00248-MP-GRJ
OFFICER SCURGIA and
OFFICER COULTER,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation dated December 13, 2013. (Doc. 5). The parties have been furnished a copy of
the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections
pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo
determination of any timely filed objections.
The Plaintiff objects to certain details in the Magistrate Judge's summary of the case.
These details, however, are not material to the issue of whether the Plaintiff can state a valid
claim for relief. For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation as explained further
below, I find that the Plaintiff's complaint, with all well-pleaded allegations taken as true, cannot
state a claim on which relief may be granted.
1.
The Plaintiff's allegation of negligence by the officers is not actionable under 28
U.S.C. § 1983. "[T]he Due Process Clause is simply not implicated by the negligent act of an
official causing unintended loss of or injury to life, liberty or property." Daniels v. Williams, 474
U.S. 327, 328 (1986). For negligent acts, "‘no procedure for compensation is constitutionally
Page 2 of 3
required.'" Id. at 333 (quoting Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 548 (1981)).
2.
The Plaintiff alleges alternatively that the officers abused their position and
intentionally deprived him of his property. "[I]ntentional deprivations of property resulting from
random and unauthorized acts of government officials do not become due process violations
where there exists adequate remedies under state law for Plaintiff to seek redress of the
deprivation." Edler v. Gielow, No. 3:08cv530/WS/EMT, 2010 WL 3958014 at *3 (N.D. Fla. Oct.
7, 2010). Although the Plaintiff objects that his case does not involve a random and unauthorized
act because "shake down searchers are not random" and occur as a matter of policy at every fight
scene (Doc. 6, ¶ 5), what must be random is not the shake down but the unauthorized conduct
causing the deprivation. The Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that "[r]easonable officers would
have followed protocol and acted in a way to secure my property by following procedures
designed to prevent the loss of my property because they had a duty to supervise, protect and
care for my property." (Doc. 1, ¶ V.6). This failure to follow procedure is what is relevant under
the due process analysis; and it is properly deemed random and unauthorized. According to the
allegations in the Plaintiff’s complaint, the officers deviated from standard procedures
established to safeguard inmate property. The deviation was not foreseeable and additional
procedural safeguards would not be practical to protect against it. In these circumstances, there is
no due process violation unless post-deprivation remedies are unavailable under state law.
Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533-34 (1984). The Plaintiff has post-deprivation remedies under state law
for the loss of his boots and radio1, so he has no due process claim under § 1983.
1
The Report and Recommendation notes that the Plaintiff was also deprived of stamps.
(Doc. 5 at p.4). It appears from reading the complaint, however, that the Plaintiff refers to stamps
as a cost he seeks to recover if he prevails in this proceeding, and not an item that went missing
when he was placed in confinement. (Doc. 1, ¶ VII). In any event, whether the stamps are an
Case No: 1:13-cv-00248-MP-GRJ
Page 3 of 3
3.
Finally, to be actionable under the Eighth Amendment, a deprivation must be
"sufficiently serious" to "result in the denial of ‘the minimal civilized measure of life's
necessities.'" Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452
U.S. 337, 347 (1981)). The Plaintiff cannot state a claim under the Eighth Amendment for the
loss of his boots and radio because the loss is not sufficiently serious. The alleged wrong
suffered by the Plaintiff can be properly addressed through state tort law: it is not a matter of
constitutional dimension.
Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto timely
filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.
The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated
by reference in this order.
2.
This case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to
state a claim on which relief may be granted. The dismissal counts as a strike for
purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of March, 2014
s/Maurice M. Paul
Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
item that went missing or a court cost, the outcome of this case would still be the same.
Case No: 1:13-cv-00248-MP-GRJ
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?