Matthews v. Jones et al
Filing
11
OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL.(Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian L Owsley) Parties notified.(lsmith, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
ISAAC MATTHEWS
TDCJ-CID #1640750
v.
M. JONES, ET AL.
§
§
§
§
§
C.A. NO. C-12-115
(Consolidated with C.A. NO. C-12-122)
OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This is a civil rights action filed by a Texas state prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 10 Stat. 1321 (1996),
any prisoner action brought under federal law must be dismissed if the complaint is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant immune from such relief. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A.
Plaintiff’s action is subject to screening regardless whether he prepays the entire filing fee, or
proceeds as a pauper. Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273, 274 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam);
Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 580 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (citations omitted). Plaintiff’s
pro se complaint must be read indulgently, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per
curiam), and his allegations must be accepted as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly
incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992).
Applying these standards, plaintiff’s claims regarding the loss of his property and the
failure to investigate his grievance are dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b)(1).
I. JURISDICTION
The Court has federal question jurisdiction over this civil rights action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1331. Upon consent of plaintiff, (D.E. 9), this action was referred to a United States
Magistrate Judge to conduct all further pleadings, including entry of final judgment. (D.E. 10);
see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff Isaac Matthews is an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Correctional Institutions Division (“TDCJ-CID”), and is currently incarcerated at the Walls Unit
in Huntsville, Texas. He filed this action on April 19, 2012, alleging, inter alia, that defendants
destroyed his property and that they failed to properly investigate his grievances. (D.E. 1). He
named as defendants: (1) Officer M. Jones; (2) Warden R. Pawelek; and (3) J.M. Garcia.
Plaintiff also filed a second action naming the same three defendants with the same
allegations in which he attached copies of his grievances with the complaint. Matthews v. Jones,
C-12-122 (S.D. Tex.). On April 27, 2012, that action was consolidated into this action. A
Spears1 hearing was conducted on May 10, 2012. The following allegations were made in
plaintiff’s original complaint, (D.E. 1), plaintiff’s complaint in Matthews v. Jones, C-12-122
(S.D. Tex.), or at the hearing.
In May 2010, while confined at the Newton County Jail, plaintiff received notice that he
would be entering the TDCJ-CID. While still at the jail, he had his personal property weighed
and determined that it would cost $4.87 to mail it to his home in Houston, Texas.
On May 25, 2010, plaintiff arrived at the Garza West Unit where Officer Jones was
working as the intake officer. At that time, he had twelve postage stamps, which he notes was
more than enough to pay for sending his personal items home. He requested that Officer Jones
mail his personal property to his Houston address, but Officer Jones refused indicating that all of
1
Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985); see also Eason v. Holt, 73 F.3d 600, 603 (5th Cir. 1996)
(stating that testimony given at a Spears hearing is incorporated into the pleadings).
2
his property, except his jewelry, would be destroyed. He asserts that a new wallet, sunglasses, a
cell phone, and a cell phone case, worth approximately $300 were all destroyed.
On May 26, 2010, plaintiff filed a Step 1 grievance, No. 2010166094, complaining that
his property had been destroyed, despite the fact that he had enough money in his trust fund
account to mail the property to his Houston address and had requested that it be sent. In a
response dated July 5, 2010, Warden Pawelek denied this grievance: “Investigation reveals
Offender Matthews requested his watch, ring, and necklace be mailed to Jacqueline Lindsay [at
the Houston address]. Offender Matthews elected to have the other property destroyed. No
further action warranted.” On July 12, 2010, plaintiff filed a Step 2 grievance, No. 2010166094,
appealing the denial. In a response dated July 28, 2010, defendant Garcia denied his Step 2
appeal finding that his complaint had been addressed appropriately in the Step 1 response. He
further indicated that there was no evidence of staff misconduct and that plaintiff’s property had
been handled properly pursuant to Administrative Directive 03.72.
In the complaint, plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that his rights were violated, an
injunction, and monetary damages.
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff contends that his constitutional rights were violated when Officer Jones
destroyed his personal property. He also claims that his grievances concerning his destroyed
property were not investigated adequately.
3
A.
The Legal Standard For Screening Inmate Civil Rights Actions.
Plaintiff’s action may be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted despite his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(2). It is
well established that “[t]o state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a
right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged
deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487
U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (citations omitted); see also Biliski v. Harborth, 55 F.3d 160, 162 (5th Cir.
1995) (per curiam). An action may be dismissed for failure to state a claim when it is clear that
the prisoner can prove no set of facts in support of his claim entitling him to relief. Oliver v.
Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 740 (5th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). The complaint must be liberally
construed in favor of the prisoner, and the truth of all pleaded facts must be assumed. Id.
(citation omitted).
B.
Plaintiff Failed To State A Claim Regarding His Lost Property.
Plaintiff alleges that a new wallet, sunglasses, a cell phone, and a cell phone case were
destroyed by Officer Jones. He valued the destroyed property at about $300.
Assuming as true that plaintiff has suffered a monetary loss from the destruction of his
property, he fails to state a constitutional violation because an adequate post-deprivation remedy
for deprivation of property under color of law eliminates any due process claim under § 1983,
regardless of whether the deprivation is negligent or intentional. See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S.
527, 543 (1981); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 534-35 (1984). Under the Parratt/Hudson
doctrine, a district court may dismiss a loss of property claim and require the plaintiff to pursue
state remedies. A plaintiff may then pursue a claim under § 1983 only after those remedies are
4
denied on grounds other than the merits of the claim. See Thompson v. Steele, 709 F.2d 381,
383 (5th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted). The burden is on the inmate to show that the postdeprivation remedy is inadequate. See Myers v. Klevenhagan, 97 F.3d 91, 94 (5th Cir. 1996).
Texas law allows recovery of monetary damages for loss of property that has been taken
without authorization. See Murphy v. Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir. 1994) (“the tort of
conversion fulfills this requirement”); see also Beam v. Voss, 568 S.W.2d 413, 420-21 (Tex.
Civ. App.) (conversion is “[t]he unauthorized and unlawful assumption and exercise of dominion
and control over the personal property of another, to the exclusion of, or inconsistent with the
owner’s rights”). In addition, state law specifically provides that inmates may recover up to
$500 on a claim that the TDCJ lost or damaged personal property. Tex. Gov’t Code § 501.007.
Plaintiff testified that he did not institute an action for conversion in state court
concerning his lost property. More importantly, he has not alleged any inadequacy in the
remedies available to him under Texas law. See Parratt, 451 U.S. at 544 (“The remedies
provided could have fully compensated the respondent for the property loss he suffered, and we
hold that they are sufficient to satisfy the requirements of due process.”). Therefore, to the
extent plaintiff is complaining of a loss of property, he has failed to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, and this claim is dismissed without prejudice.
C.
Plaintiff Failed To State A Claim Regarding The Investigation Of Grievances.
Plaintiff claims that defendants Pawelek and Garcia failed to investigate properly his
grievances concerning his lost property . The Supreme Court has held that a prisoner has a
liberty interest only in “freedom from restraint which, ... imposes atypical and significant
hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner,
5
515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). The Fifth Circuit has relied on Sandin to find that a prisoner has no
federally protected liberty interest in having his prison grievances investigated or answered
favorably. See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 374 (5th Cir. 2005); see also Beall v. Johnson,
54 F. App’x 796, 2002 WL 31845615, at *1 (5th Cir. Dec. 12, 2002) (per curiam) (unpublished)
(prisoner’s allegation that he has a constitutionally protected right to have his grievance
investigated and resolved is without merit because resolution of the grievance does not involve a
“significant hardship ... in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.”) (citing Sandin, 515
U.S. at 485-86); Taylor v. Cockrell, 92 F. App’x 77, 78 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam)
(unpublished) (same). Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims alleging that defendants did not
investigate his grievances properly are dismissed for failure to state a claim.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s property claim against Officer Jones is dismissed
without prejudice and his claims against defendants Pawelek and Garcia for failure to properly
investigate his grievances are dismissed for failure to state a claim or as frivolous pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b)(1).
ORDERED this 17th day of May 2012.
___________________________________
BRIAN L. OWSLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
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?