Smith v. Lee et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION dismissing complaint; denying in forma pauperis as moot. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 6/7/16. (tab)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
JOHN R. SMITH

PLAINTIFF

V.

NO. 4:16-CV-85-DMB-SAA

EARNEST LEE, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on the pro se prisoner complaint of John R. Smith, 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 Smith was incarcerated when he filed this suit. Smith
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 law causes the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Smith alleges that the
defendants took money from his commissary account without due process of law and refused to
return it. For the reasons below, the instant case will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.
I.

Factual Allegations

On August 10, 2015, while housed at the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility
(“CMCF”), Smith ordered $99.40 worth of commissary items. The money for the merchandise was
deducted from his prison trust account on September 1, 2015. On August 10, 2015, however, Smith
was transferred from CMCF to the Mississippi State Penitentiary, and never received the
commissary items he ordered. Though he asked for a refund of his money, he has never received
one.

II.

Taking of Property Without Due Process of Law

Smith may not proceed with his case in this federal court because he has an adequate remedy
at law in state court. The random and unauthorized deprivation of a prisoner’s property by a state
employee does not violate the prisoner’s due process rights if the state provides an adequate postdeprivation 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 Cnty.,
Tex., 822 F.2d 553, 555 (5th Cir. 1987); see Hudson, 486 U.S. at 533; White v. Epps, 411 F. App’x
731, 732 (5th Cir. 2011). Thus, the initial question as to Smith’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 or its employees would be
controlled by the Mississippi Tort Claims Act, Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-9 (“MTCA”). As for suits
filed by prisoners, the MTCA states:
(1) A governmental entity and its employees acting within the course and 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
Smith may have under state law. However, Smith’s remedy for the taking of property arises directly
from the Constitution of the State of Mississippi, which cannot be circumvented through a state

2

statute. Pickering v. Langston Law Firm, P.A., 88 So.3d 1269, 1288 (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, No. 4:11cv63-LRA, 2012 WL 1804623, at *2 (S.D. Miss. May 17,
2012) (citing Johnson v. King, 85 So.3d 307 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012)). Article 3, Section 17, of the
Mississippi Constitution states:
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 be public shall be
a judicial question, and, as such, determined without regard to legislative assertion
that the use is public.
Miss. Const. Art. 3, § 17.
The circumstances in Johnson are legally indistinguishable from those in the instant case.
The prison officials in Johnson confiscated Johnson’s drinking mug, offering only to ship it to
Johnson’s home, even though Johnson was serving a life sentence. Johnson, 85 So.3d at 311–12.
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 such circumstances, the taking of
Johnson’s mug violated the Mississippi Constitution, as it constituted “an unlawful taking for public
use without just compensation,” and that prison officials had to either replace the mug or compensate
Johnson for its value. Id. at 312. Those facts mirror the facts in the present case. As such, in this
case, Smith has an adequate remedy under state law, and his claims for the taking of his property
without due process of law must be dismissed.
III.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, Smith’s complaint [1] will be DISMISSED for failure to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted and, accordingly, his motion to proceed in forma

3

pauperis [2] is DENIED as moot. A final judgment consistent with this memorandum opinion will
issue today.
SO ORDERED, this 17th day of June, 2016.
/s/ Debra M. Brown
.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4