Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-1433 SECTION P
12-16-2020
MICHAEL WATKINS v. COMMISSARY OFFICER BAREFOOT, ET AL.
JUDGE TERRY A. DOUGHTY
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Michael Watkins, a prisoner at Madison Parish Correctional Center proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this proceeding on approximately November 3, 2020, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He names Commissary Officer Barefoot and Warden Anderson as defendants. For reasons below, the Court should dismiss Plaintiff's claims.
This matter has been referred to the undersigned for review, report, and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the standing orders of the Court.
Background
Plaintiff Michael Watkins claims that Commissary Officer Barefoot allowed another inmate, also named Michael Watkins, to purchase goods from the commissary using funds from Plaintiff's account. [doc. # 1, p. 3]. Plaintiff asked Officer Barefoot, Captain Hugh, Major Farmer, and Major Chase to replace his money, but they refused. Id. Plaintiff seeks the return of his money and court costs. Id. at 4.
Law and Analysis
1. Preliminary Screening
Plaintiff is a prisoner who has been permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. As a prisoner seeking redress from an officer or employee of a governmental entity, his complaint is subject to preliminary screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579-80 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Because he is proceeding in forma pauperis, his Complaint is also subject to screening under § 1915(e)(2). Both § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b) provide for sua sponte dismissal of the complaint, or any portion thereof, if the Court finds it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), "'prisoner' means any person incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms and conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program."
A complaint is frivolous when it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law when it is "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory." Id. at 327. Courts are also afforded the unusual power to pierce the veil of the factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id.
A complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted when it fails to plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim is facially plausible when it contains sufficient factual content for the court "to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Plausibility does not equate to possibility or probability; it lies somewhere in between. Id. Plausibility simply calls for enough factual allegations to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence to support the elements of the claim. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.
Assessing whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a "context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Iqbal, supra. A well-pled complaint may proceed even if it strikes the court that actual proof of the asserted facts is improbable and that recovery is unlikely. Twombly, supra.
In making this determination, the court must assume that all of the plaintiff's factual allegations are true. Bradley v. Puckett, 157 F.3d 1022, 1025 (5th Cir. 1998). However, the same presumption does not extend to legal conclusions. Iqbal, supra. A pleading comprised of "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action" does not satisfy Rule 8. Id. "[P]laintiffs must allege facts that support the elements of the cause of action in order to make out a valid claim." City of Clinton, Ark. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp, 632 F.3d 148, 152-53 (5th Cir. 2010). Courts are "not free to speculate that the plaintiff 'might' be able to state a claim if given yet another opportunity to add more facts to the complaint." Macias v. Raul A. (Unknown) Badge No. 153, 23 F.3d 94, 97 (5th Cir. 1994).
A hearing need not be conducted for every pro se complaint. Wilson v. Barrientos, 926 F.2d 480, 483 n.4 (5th Cir. 1991). A district court may dismiss a prisoner's civil rights complaint as frivolous based upon the complaint and exhibits alone. Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1120 (5th Cir. 1986).
"To state a section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must (1) allege a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and (2) demonstrate that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law." Whitley v. Hanna, 726 F.3d 631, 638 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Consistent with the standard above, a "[S]ection 1983 complaint must state specific facts, not simply legal and constitutional conclusions." Fee v. Herndon, 900 F.2d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 1990).
2. Lost or Stolen Funds
Perforce, Plaintiff essentially claims that defendants violated his right to procedural due process.
"For the intentional deprivation of property to give rise to a due process violation, the deprivation must have been officially authorized and the plaintiff must challenge both the deprivation and the procedure under which it was authorized." Brewer v. Hightower, 628 F. App'x 303 (5th Cir. 2016). In contrast, a post-deprivation tort cause of action in state law is, under the Parratt/Hudson doctrine, sufficient to satisfy the requirements of due process when a plaintiff alleges that he has been deprived of his property, without due process of law, by the negligent or intentional actions of a state officer that are "random and unauthorized." Sheppard v. Louisiana Bd. of Parole, 873 F.2d 761, 763 (5th Cir. 1989) (quoting Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533-35).
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984); Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981), overruled in part by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986).
"The doctrine is meant to protect the state from liability for failing to provide predeprivation process in situations where it cannot anticipate the need for such process (when actions are random and unauthorized)." Brooks v. George County, Miss., 84 F.3d 157, 165 (5th Cir. 1996).
Louisiana law provides an adequate remedy for both intentional and negligent deprivations of property (for instance, negligence, conversion, civil theft, or fraud). Copsey v. Swearingen, 36 F.3d 1336, 1342-43 (5th Cir. 1994); Marshall v. Norwood, 741 F.2d 761, 764 (5th Cir. 1984) (citing Louisiana Civil Code Article 2315 and observing that "Louisiana law affords an opportunity to redress intentional torts under the same section of the Code by which negligence is remedied."); Fuller v. XTO Energy, Inc., 989 So. 2d 298, 302 (La. Ct. App. 2008) (recognizing the tort of conversion).
See also Suria v. Wathen, 616 F. App'x 175 (5th Cir. 2015) (affirming dismissal of a claim, that correctional officers lost an inmate's personal property through gross negligence and dereliction of duty, on grounds that "negligent conduct is not actionable under § 1983.").
Here, Plaintiff does not allege that he was deprived of his property by anyone acting under an official policy, custom, procedure, or authorized act; rather, he describes random and unauthorized action. Plaintiff should, if he wishes, pursue relief under state law in state court because Louisiana law provides adequate remedies for this alleged conduct.
The Court should dismiss Plaintiff's claims.
See Allen v. Fuselier, 273 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing Parratt and concluding, "Allen's assertion that the defendants improperly removed $75 from his inmate account is frivolous because the existence of a postdeprivation tort cause of action in [Louisiana] law is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of due process."); Washington v. Collier, 747 F. App'x 221, 222 (5th Cir. 2018) ("[A] state actor's unauthorized deprivation of an inmate's prison account funds—be it negligent or intentional—'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.'") (quoting Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533); Myers v. Klevenhagen, 97 F.3d 91 (5th Cir. 1996); Parker v. Davilla, 67 F. App'x 242 (5th Cir. 2003); Cannon v. Howard, 224 F.3d 766 (5th Cir. 2000).
Recommendation
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff Michael Watkins' claims be DISMISSED as frivolous and for failing to state claims on which relief may be granted.
Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b), parties aggrieved by this recommendation have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report and Recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court. A party may respond to another party's objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of any objections or response to the district judge at the time of filing.
Failure to file written objections to the proposed factual findings and/or the proposed legal conclusions reflected in this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days following the date of its service, or within the time frame authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) , shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking either the factual findings or the legal conclusions accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association , 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996).
In Chambers, Monroe, Louisiana, this 16th day of December, 2020.
/s/_________
Karen L. Hayes
United States Magistrate Judge