Bacon v. Messer et al

Filing 13

OPINION. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 1/6/2015. (tvt)

“IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
ADRIAN NATHANIEL BACON,
Plaintiff,
v.
MS. J. MESSER, ET AL.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 7:14CV00572
OPINION
By: James P. Jones
United States District Judge

Adrian Nathaniel Bacon, Pro Se Plaintiff.
The plaintiff, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that officials in the Virginia Department of
Corrections (“VDOC”) have violated his constitutional rights by failing to process
his grievances correctly and by depriving him of his color television set. The court
filed the action on condition that the plaintiff consent to payment of the filing fee
and demonstrate exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Upon review of the

record, I find that while the plaintiff has fulfilled these prefiling conditions, his
lawsuit must be summarily dismissed without prejudice as legally frivolous.
The court must dismiss any action or claim filed by a prisoner against a
governmental entity or officer if the court determines the action or claim is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). To state a cause of action under § 1983, a plaintiff must

establish that he has been deprived of rights guaranteed by the Constitution or laws
of the United States and that this deprivation resulted from conduct committed by a
person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988).
Bacon’s claims are brief and to the point:
(GC) Ms. J. Messer has continuously denied me my right to due
process as set out in the Institutional Operating Procedure. Each time
I try to grieve something she either rejects it or stills [sic] it or
falsif[ies] a response.
....
(WRD) Mr. Curtis Parr in his supervisor capacity after being notified
on more than one occasion of (GC) Ms. J. Messer’s actions along with
his decision to return grievances for intake review has still failed to
addess the issue.
....
Sgt. Stanwick & C/O Hylton deprived me of my 13″ KTV color TV &
cable cord. Then upon leaving [their] care, they failed to ship it with
me therefore breaching a contract.
(Compl. 2.) As relief, Bacon seeks replacement of his television and recovery of
costs for bringing this action.
Bacon attempts to equate state prison grievance procedures with federal due
process. No such correlation exists. It is well established that inmates do not have
a constitutionally protected right to participate in a prison grievance procedure.
Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994). Consequently, a prison official’s
failure to comply with an existing state grievance procedure does not violate any
-2-

constitutionally protected right. Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.
1988). Therefore, Bacon has no actionable claim under § 1983, based on prison
officials’ unsatisfactory responses to his informal complaints, grievances, and
appeals, and I will summarily dismiss his grievance procedure claims without
prejudice, pursuant to § 1915A(b)(1), as legally frivolous.
Bacon’s claim concerning the loss of his television is also legally frivolous.
“[A]n unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does
not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss
is available.” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). Section 1983 actions
were intended to vindicate federal rights, not tort claims for which there are
adequate state law remedies or violations of state laws or regulations, such as the
VDOC property procedures. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 849 (4th Cir. 1985).
Because Bacon possessed tort remedies under Virginia state law to seek
reimbursement, see Virginia Code § 8.01-195.3, it is clear that he cannot prevail in
a constitutional claim for the alleged loss of his television or other property items.
Moreover, officials’ alleged violations of prison regulations regarding Bacon’s
property items do not implicate any constitutionally protected right and so are not
actionable under § 1983. Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. for City of Balt., 901 F.2d
387, 392 (4th Cir. 1990).
-3-

For these reasons, even assuming that Bacon could prove his factual
allegations that the defendants intentionally failed to retain and forward his
property to him after his transfer, those facts do not support any claim of
constitutional significance as required for relief under § 1983. Accordingly, I must
dismiss Bacon’s complaint without prejudice, pursuant to § 1915A(b)(1), as
frivolous.
A separate final order will be entered herewith.
DATED: January 6, 2015
/s/ James P. Jones
United States District Judge

-4-