Fifer v. Carey
Filing
33
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 6/27/2016. The Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint 27 is DENIED. The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 24 is GRANTED. Judgment to be entered i n favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff. All pending motions are denied as moot. Case terminated with the parties to bear their own costs. The Plaintiff remains responsible for the $350.00 filing fee. If the Plaintiff wishes to ap peal this judgment, he must file a notice of appeal with the Court within 30 days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). If the Plaintiff does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $505.00 appellate filing fee regardless of the outcome of the appeal. (MAS, ilcd)
E-FILED
Tuesday, 28 June, 2016 11:38:57 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
MARCUS BRENT FIFER,
Plaintiff,
v.
SGT. BRIAN CAREY,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
15-3233
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and presently incarcerated at
Macon County Jail, brought the present lawsuit pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional violations related to the
seizure of personal letters he possessed in his jail cell. The matter
comes before this Court for ruling on the Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment. (Doc. 24). The motion is granted.
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
After Defendant filed his motion for summary judgment,
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint.
(Doc. 27). In his proposed Amended Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to
add additional defendants who were allegedly involved in the
Page 1 of 8
confiscation of personal property at issue. As discussed below,
Plaintiff cannot prevail on the underlying constitutional claims.
Accordingly, any amended complaint seeking to add defendants
would be futile. Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
In addition, Plaintiff identifies the victim in his criminal case in
his proposed amended complaint and in his response to the
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The Court finds that
this individual’s name should not be part of the public record for
the same reasons this individual’s name was redacted in Plaintiff’s
criminal case. See U.S. v. Fifer, No. 14-30006 (C.D. Ill., filed Feb.
11, 2014). The Court therefore orders that Plaintiff’s motion (Doc.
27) and response (Doc. 30) be sealed. Redacted versions of these
documents will be docketed in their place as detailed below.
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment should be granted “if the movant shows
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). All facts must be construed in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party, and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in
his favor. Ogden v. Atterholt, 606 F.3d 355, 358 (7th Cir. 2010).
Page 2 of 8
The party moving for summary judgment must show the lack of a
genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 323 (1986). In order to be a “genuine” issue, there must be
more than “some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.”
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,
586 (1986). “Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome
of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry
of summary judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 248 (1986).
FACTS
At all times relevant, Plaintiff was incarcerated at the
Sangamon County Jail (“jail”). Defendant Carey is a sergeant at the
jail and the sole defendant Plaintiff named in his original complaint.
On April 23, 2015, Defendant Carey searched Plaintiff’s jail
cell and confiscated approximately 60 pages of handwritten letters
Plaintiff had received from the victim in his pending criminal case, a
friend, and his son. Lieutenant Strayer, Defendant’s supervisor,
ordered Defendant Carey to seize the letters at an investigating law
enforcement agency’s request.
Page 3 of 8
Copies of the letters were provided to Plaintiff’s attorney in his
criminal case. Pl.’s Dep. 27:6-7 (“But my lawyer had copies of [the
letters] when she showed me.”). Plaintiff’s lawyer attempted to
introduce them into evidence in his criminal case, but the court
excluded any reference to them during the trial. See U.S. v. Fifer,
No. 14-30006 (C.D. Ill., filed Feb. 11, 2014) (Government’s Third
Motion in Limine to Exclude Defendant’s Exhibits granted in Text
Order entered November 2, 2015).
In his deposition, Plaintiff admits that the letters did not apply
to the charges for which he was actually tried. Pl.’s Dep. 33:7-10
(“[T]he letter applies to possession of child pornography while they
didn’t apply to the charge of exploitation of a minor.”); 34:15-19
(“[T]hey dropped the possession of child pornography, and that’s
why they did the motion to eliminate all of the evidence that had
anything to do with her age.”).
ANALYSIS
In its Merit Review Order, the Court found Plaintiff stated a
claim because Plaintiff claimed the letters were exculpatory in his
pending criminal case. See (Doc. 7). The Court cited Armstrong v.
Daily, 786 F.3d 529 (7th Cir. 2015). Armstrong involved the
Page 4 of 8
intentional destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence and the
implications of fundamental fairness in a criminal prosecution that
arose therefrom. Id. at 533-36. The parties agree that Armstrong is
not applicable to the facts in this lawsuit—copies of the letters were
provided to Plaintiff’s lawyer in his criminal case.
Defendant argues further that Plaintiff cannot establish that
Defendant’s actions violated any of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
The Court agrees. Prisoners have no reasonable expectation of
privacy in their jail cells and, therefore, are not entitled to the
Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches
and seizures. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526 (1984).
Moreover, once property is lawfully seized, the Fourth Amendment
“cannot be invoked by the dispossessed owner to regain his
property.” Lee v. City of Chicago, 330 F.3d 456, 466 (7th Cir. 2003).
Nor can Plaintiff prevail on a procedural due process claim for
failure to provide a pre-deprivation hearing. “[T]he necessity for
quick action by the State or the impracticability of providing any
meaningful pre-deprivation process, when coupled with the
availability of some meaningful means by which to assess the
propriety of the State’s action at some time after the initial taking,
Page 5 of 8
can satisfy the requirements of procedural due process.” Parratt v.
Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 539 (1981). Providing an individual with a
hearing prior to a law enforcement’s seizure of property where the
Fourth Amendment does not apply and the property in question is
potential evidence in a criminal investigation defies common sense.
Any such hearing risks both the potential destruction of the
property and creates a risk that the otherwise unaware target of the
investigation may obstruct law enforcement officials.
Plaintiff’s criminal case may present barriers to the return of
Plaintiff’s letters as they relate to his trial and any appeal.
Nonetheless, if a civil lawsuit is the proper forum at this time to
seek return of the property, Plaintiff has an adequate postdeprivation remedy available to him in the Illinois Court of Claims.
See Stewart v. McGinnis, 5 F.3d 1031, 1036 (7th Cir. 1993).
Finally, the confiscation of these letters does not amount to
the type of extreme deprivation necessary to implicate
constitutional conditions-of-confinement concerns under the Eighth
or Fourteenth Amendment. See Burton v. Downey, 805 F.3d 776,
786 (7th Cir. 2015) (a plaintiff must suffer “deprivations of essential
food, medical care, or sanitation” to make out a constitutional claim
Page 6 of 8
(quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 348 (1981)); Mayoral v.
Sheahan, 245 F.2d 934, 938 (7th Cir. 2001) (claims by pretrial
detainees arise under the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Eighth
Amendment).
Therefore, the Court finds that no reasonable juror could
conclude that Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint
[27] is DENIED for the reasons stated above.
2) Clerk is directed to seal the original copies of Plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint [27] and
Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [30]. Clerk is further directed to docket
redacted copies of said documents, removing all
references to the full name of the individual with the
initials “C.T.” This individual’s initials shall be
substituted where the full name appears in the
documents.
3) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [24] is
GRANTED. The clerk of the court is directed to enter
judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff. All
pending motions not addressed are denied as moot, and
this case is terminated, with the parties to bear their own
costs. Plaintiff remains responsible for the $350.00 filing
fee.
4) If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this judgment, he must file a
notice of appeal with this Court within 30 days of the
entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). A motion for
leave to appeal in forma pauperis MUST identify the issues
Page 7 of 8
the Plaintiff will present on appeal to assist the court in
determining whether the appeal is taken in good faith. See
FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(1)(c); see also Celske v Edwards, 164
F.3d 396, 398 (7th Cir. 1999)(an appellant should be given
an opportunity to submit a statement of his grounds for
appealing so that the district judge “can make a
reasonable assessment of the issue of good faith.”); Walker
v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 2000)(providing that
a good faith appeal is an appeal that “a reasonable person
could suppose…has some merit” from a legal perspective).
If Plaintiff does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the
$505.00 appellate filing fee regardless of the outcome of
the appeal.
ENTERED:
June 27, 2016.
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 8 of 8
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?