Opinion
No. 7:02-CV-235-R
October 17, 2002
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This is an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by an inmate confined in the Allred Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in Iowa Park, Texas. Plaintiff claims that, on June 29, 2002, several of his magazines and a catalog were taken by prison guards. See Complaint ¶ V; Grievance, attached to Complaint. He seeks 1 million dollars in monetary damages. Id. at ¶ VI.
The United States Supreme Court has held that the "unauthorized, intentional deprivation of property" does not constitute a civil rights violation if there exists a meaningful post-deprivation remedy. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 3204 (1984); accord Nickens v. Melton, 38 F.3d 183, 184-85 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1025, 115 S.Ct. 1376 (1995); Holloway v. Walker, 790 F.2d 1170, 1174 (5th Cir.) (finding no breach of federally guaranteed constitutional rights, even where a high level state employee intentionally engages in tortious conduct, as long as the state system as a whole provides due process of law), cert denied, 479 U.S. 984, 107 S.Ct. 571 (1986).
James has the state common-law action of conversion available to remedy his alleged loss of property. Myers v. Adams, 728 S.W.2d 771 (Tex. 1987). Conversion occurs when there is an unauthorized and unlawful exercise of dominion and control over the personal property of another which is inconsistent with the rights of the owner. Beam v. Voss, 568 S.W.2d 413, 420-21 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1978, no writ). If Defendant exercised unauthorized control over James personal property, he has a factual basis to allege a cause of action in conversion. Such a common-law action in state court would be sufficient to meet constitutional due process requirements. Groves v. Cox, 559 F. Supp. 772, 773 (E.D. Va. 1983).
To the extent, if any, that Plaintiff seeks redress for the loss of property on a theory of negligence, he has failed to state a colorable claim under § 1983. Where mere negligence is involved in causing a deprivation of property, no procedure for compensation is constitutionally required. The unintentional loss of property does not state a cause of action under § 1983. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328, 106 S.Ct. 662, 663 (1986); Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 347 106 S.Ct. 668, 670 (1986).
A district court may dismiss a complaint filed in form a pauperis if it determines that the action is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(i). An action is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831-32 (1989); Henson-El v. Rogers, 923 F.2d 51, 53 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1235, 111 S.Ct. 2863 (1991). A complaint is without an arguable basis in law if it is "based on indisputably meritless legal theory." Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327, 109 S.Ct. at 1833. The claims set forth in the case at bar have no arguable basis under federal law.
A review of James' litigation history reflects that, since September 5, 2002, he has filed 17 new civil rights actions in the Northern District of Texas, 12 of which have been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. James' repeated filing of frivolous complaints represents the utmost in abuse
James v. Hart, 7:02-CV-192-R (N.D. Tex.); James v. Haney, 7:02-CV-193-R (N.D. Tex.); James v. White House Lawmakers, 7:02-CV-206-R (N.D. Tex.); James v. Brorby, 7:02-CV-207-R (N.D. Tex.); James v. Allred Unit, 7:02-CV-216-R (N.D. Tex.); James v. Mitchell, 7:02-CV-217-R (N.D. Tex.); James v. Doe, 7:02-CV-229-R (N.D. Tax.); James v. Texas Dep't of Criminal Justice, 7:02-CV-230-R (N.D. Tex.); James v. Texas Dep't of Criminal Justice, 7:02-CV-231-R (N.D. Tex.); James v. Philadelphia Church of God, 7:02-CV-232-R (N.D. Tex.); James v. Tightwad Magazines, 7:02-CV-233-R (N.D. Tex.); James v. Woody, 7:02-CV-234-R (N.D. Tex.).
of his constitutional right of access the courts. See Holloway v. Hornsby, 23 F.3d 944, 946 (5th Cir. 1994). Such frivolity impairs the justice system by wasting scarce judicial resources. Id. Those truly harmed by such recreation on the part of in forma pauperis litigants are citizens who seek and are entitled to relief from our courts. Id. The Court has the authority to stop such abuses. See Humphrey v. Bowles, 125 F.R.D. 657 (N.D. Tex. 1988) (sanctioning a pro se prisoner $360 after 12 frivolous lawsuits), aff'd, 888 F.2d 1390 (5th Cir. 1989) (table).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint is hereby dismissed without prejudice as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(i).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mason P. James is barred from filing any federal civil action unless he obtains prior written permission from a Judge of the Court. If Mason P. James attempts to file a civil action without prior written permission from a Judge of the Court, the Clerk of Court may return the pleadings to him unfiled.
Mason P. James is hereby WARNED that if he persists in attempting to file new lawsuits, the Court may order that his pleadings be discarded without notice.
A copy of this order shall be transmitted to Plaintiff.