Hodges v. Jones et al

Filing 27

ORDER OF DISMISSAL for failure to state a claim. Case terminated on 10/26/2010. Any and all pending motions DENIED AS MOOT.(Signed by Judge Gray H. Miller) Parties notified.(gseidl)

Hodges v. Jones et al

Doc. 27

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS H O U S T O N DIVISION L ORENZA L. HODGES, #6000727, P l a i n t i ff , v. G EANNIE JONES, ET AL., D e fen d a n ts. § § § § § § § § §

C IVIL ACTION NO. H-10-3029

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
P la in t if f , a state inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, files this lawsuit u n d er section 1983 asserting claims for loss of personal property against prison officers A lf o n s o Castillo, Thomas Hunt, and Geannie Jones, and for retaliation against Jones. A f te r conducting a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1 9 1 5 A , the Court DISMISSES this lawsuit for the reasons that follow. Background and Claims P la in tif f asserts that, on May 13, 2008, defendant Jones improperly confiscated and in te n tio n a lly destroyed his headphones, a law book, and a brown envelope. He further claims th a t , on May 27, 2008, Jones wrongfully deprived him of his property for twenty-one days, a n d returned his radio and typewriter to him in damaged condition. Plaintiff alleges that J o n e s failed to follow "flawless" prison rules and regulations regarding prisoner property on b o th occasions. He also asserts that Jones damaged his property in retaliation for his helping a n o th e r inmate file a grievance and property claim against Jones.

Dockets.Justia.com

P l a i n tif f reports that his prison grievances regarding these claims were denied. He se e k s recovery of monetary compensation for his damaged and destroyed personal property a n d for Jones's retaliation. Loss of Property P la in tif f does not present a valid constitutional claim for his deprivation of property. A s long as the state provides for a meaningful post-deprivation remedy, no constitutional v io la tio n occurs when a state employee negligently or intentionally deprives a prisoner of p ro p e rty. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). Constitutional due process is s a tis f ie d in the instant case because the Texas tort of conversion provided plaintiff with an a d e q u a te post-deprivation remedy. Murphy v. Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 543­44 (5th Cir. 1994). A c c o rd in g ly, plaintiff's claims for loss of or damage to his personal property are not a c tio n a b le under 28 U.S.C. § 1983. T o the extent plaintiff complains of a "flawless unit property policy" (Docket Entry N o . 1, p. 8), plaintiff fails to set forth any factual allegations supporting this conclusory c la im . Retaliation P lain tiff asserts no viable retaliation claim. To state a claim of retaliation, an inmate m u st allege the violation of a specific constitutional right and be prepared to establish that, b u t for the retaliatory motive, the complained of incident would not have occurred. This

2

p lac e s a significant burden on the inmate, and mere conclusory allegations of retaliation will n o t suffice. Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff alleges that Jones retaliated against him because he helped another inmate f ile a grievance and property claim against her. To prevail under this claim, plaintiff must sh o w that he was retaliated against for exercising a constitutional right. Plaintiff, however, e n jo ys no constitutional right to help another inmate file a prison grievance or property claim. S e e Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223, 231 n.3 (2001) (noting that prisoners do not have a f re e s ta n d in g right to give or receive legal advice); see also Tighe v. Wall, 100 F.3d 41, 43 (5 th Cir. 1996) (refusing to find that "jailhouse lawyers" have a protected liberty interest in p ro v id in g assistance to other inmates). Accordingly, plaintiff fails to assert his exercise of a constitutional right that resulted in retaliation against him by Jones. Even assuming plaintiff had a constitutional right to assist the other prisoner, plaintiff m u s t produce direct evidence of motivation or, the more probable scenario, set forth a c h ro n o lo g y of events from which retaliation may be plausibly inferred. Woods, 60 F.3d at 1 1 6 6 . Plaintiff's conclusory allegations of retaliation fail to establish that, but for a re ta lia to ry motive, Jones would not have confiscated or damaged his property. Conclusion T h is lawsuit is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim. A n y and all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. This dismissal counts as a "strike" u n d e r section 1915(g). 3

T h e Clerk will provide a copy of this Order to the parties, to the TDCJ Office of the G en era l Counsel, Capitol Station, P.O. Box 13084, Austin, Texas 78711, and to the Clerk o f the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, 211 West F erg u so n , Tyler, Texas, 75702, Attention: Inmate Three-Strike List Manager. S ig n e d at Houston, Texas, on October 26, 2010.

Gray H. Miller U n ite d States District Judge

4