Opinion
Case No. 00-CV-73621-DT.
October 19, 2000.
OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
The court has before it Plaintiff T. Paul Keenan's pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a state prisoner currently confined at the Michigan Reformatory in Ionia, Michigan. The court has reviewed Plaintiff's complaint and now dismisses it for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) he or she was deprived of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the Federal Constitution or laws of the United States, and (2) the deprivation was caused by a person acting under color of state law. Absent either element, a § 1983 claim will not lie. McLittle v. O'Brien, 974 F. Supp. 635, 637 (E.D.Mich. 1997). A pro se civil rights complaint is to be construed liberally. Middleton v. McGinnis, 860 F. Supp. 391, 392 (E.D.Mich. 1994). However, an in forma pauperis complaint may be dismissed sua sponte for failure to state a claim where it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim which would entitle the plaintiff to relief. Anyanwutaku v. Moore, 151 F.3d 1053, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
Plaintiff alleges that he was transferred from the Standish Maximum Facility ("Standish") to the Southern Michigan Correctional Facility ("Southern Michigan") on May 19, 1998. Prior to his transfer, personal property items including a stapler, tweezers, toenail clippers, and transcript binders were placed in storage at Standish. Plaintiff alleges that, although prison authorities claim to have sent the property to Southern Michigan to "catch up" with Plaintiff after his transfer, he never received the property. Plaintiff claims that he continues to be denied his property despite repeated requests to prison officials. Plaintiff attempted unsuccessfully to obtain return of the property through the prison grievance system. Plaintiff's first step grievance was denied because prison officials claimed the property had been sent to Southern Michigan and was or would be there. Plaintiff attempted to appeal this first step grievance, but his appeals were denied as untimely. Plaintiff now seeks unspecified compensatory damages for his lost property as well as punitive damages in an unspecified amount.
In the present case, it appears that Plaintiff alleges that his property was either lost or stolen while in the care of the Michigan Department of Corrections. To the extent that Plaintiff is merely alleging that corrections' officials negligently lost his property, he has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not implicated by a state official's negligent act causing unintended loss of or injury to life, liberty, or property. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986); Green v. United States, 8 F. Supp.2d 983, 996 (W.D.Mich. 1998). To the extent that Plaintiff is alleging mere negligence on the part of Defendants, he has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Plaintiff has not explicitly alleged that his property has been stolen. However, Plaintiff has alleged that the disappearance of his property is the result of "staff corruption." This allegation implies intentionally wrongful theft or conversion of the property, as opposed to merely negligent loss of the property.
Moreover, even if Defendants' retention of Plaintiff's property was intentional, Plaintiff still would not be able to state a claim under § 1983. An 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 state postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); Bass v. Robinson, 167 F.3d 1041, 1049 (6th Cir. 1999). A prison inmate bringing a § 1983 procedural due process claim has the burden of pleading and proving that the state remedies for redressing the wrong are inadequate. Vicory v. Walton, 721 F.2d 1062, 1066 (6th Cir. 1983). Where a plaintiff in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action fails to demonstrate the inadequacy of his state remedies, the case should be dismissed. See Oswald v. Graves, 819 F. Supp. 680, 684 (E.D.Mich. 1993).
In the present case, Plaintiff does not allege the inadequacy of remedies in Michigan for him to obtain compensation for his loss, nor does he even indicate that he has attempted to obtain relief from any court or tribunal in Michigan. Because Plaintiff does not allege the inadequacy of the postdeprivation remedies in the State of Michigan, his complaint is subject to dismissal.
Plaintiff, in fact has adequate postdeprivation remedies available in the Michigan courts. Michigan has several post-deprivation remedies, including M.C.R. 3.105, which allows for an action for claim and delivery of the property; M.C.L.A. 600.2920, which provides a civil action to recover possession of or damages for goods and chattels unlawfully detained; and M.C.L.A. 600.6401, the Michigan Court of Claims Act, which establishes a procedure to compensate for alleged unjustifiable acts of state officials. See Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F.3d 476, 480 (6th Cir. 1995).
Because Michigan provides Plaintiff with adequate postdeprivation remedies for the loss of his property, the unauthorized negligent or intentional deprivation of Plaintiff's property does not rise to the level of a violation of due process. Harrington v. Grayson, 811 F. Supp. 1221, 1225 (E.D.Mich. 1993).
Plaintiff lastly alleges in his complaint that he has been the victim of retaliation, but he offers no facts to support this allegation. Conclusory unsupported allegations of a constitutional deprivation do not state a § 1983 claim. Johnson v. Freeburn, 29 F. Supp.2d 764, 767 (E.D.Mich. 1998). Because Plaintiff alleges no facts to support a claim of retaliation by prison officials, he has failed to state a claim under § 1983.
Because Plaintiff has adequate postdeprivation remedies available to him in the State of Michigan, he cannot maintain an action in federal court against any of the defendants for wrongful conversion of his money or property.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.