McFarland v. Casteel et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 2/3/2014. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

PHILANDER S. McFARLAND
Plaintiff,

]
]
]
]
]
]
]

v.
DEBRA CASTEEL, et al.
Defendants.

No.
(No. 3:13-mc-0180)
Judge Sharp

M E M O R A N D U M
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is an inmate at the South
Central Correctional Center (SCCC) in Clifton, Tennessee. He brings
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Debra Casteel and
fourteen other members of the SCCC staff, and a fellow inmate by
the name of Lawrence, seeking injunctive relief and damages.
The complaint is often difficult to understand. However, it
appears that the plaintiff believes that personal property was
wrongly taken from his cell during several searches. In addition,
the plaintiff mentions the defendants’ failure to protect him from
another inmate (Lawrence).
To establish a claim for § 1983 relief, the plaintiff must
plead and prove that the defendants, while acting under color of
state law, deprived him of a right guaranteed by the Constitution
or laws of the United States. Parratt v. Taylor, 101 S.Ct. 1908

1

(1981).
A prisoner’s claim for the loss of personal property fails to
state a cognizable action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Id., even if the
loss of property was the result of intentional misconduct. Hudson
v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984). This general proposition is
inapplicable only when the state fails to provide an inmate with an
adequate post-deprivation remedy. Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455
U.S. 422, 435-436 (1982). In this regard, Tennessee’s statutory
post-deprivation remedy has been found to satisfy the requirements
of due process. McLaughlin v. Weathers, 170 F.3d 577, 581-82 (6th
Cir.1999). Therefore, in the absence of any allegations suggesting
that the plaintiff has been denied the due process safeguards
guaranteed to him by state law, the plaintiff has failed to state
a claim related to the loss of property upon which relief can be
granted.
As

for

plaintiff’s

assertion

that

some

or

all

of

the

defendants failed to protect him from another inmate, the complaint
contains no factual allegations suggesting that the defendants were
aware of any impending threat to the plaintiff’s well being. Thus,
he has failed to state a claim based upon a failure to protect.
When a prisoner plaintiff has failed to state a claim, the
Court is obliged to dismiss his complaint sua sponte. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2).
Accordingly, an appropriate order will be entered dismissing

2

this action.

____________________________
Kevin H. Sharp
United States District Judge

3