Roop v. Ryan

8 Citing cases

  1. Picarella v. Wetzel

    Civil Action 1:20-CV-1440 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 16, 2022)

    Thus, the Takings Clause is not implicated here. See, e.g., Roop v. Ryan, No. CV 12-0270-PHX-RCB, 2012 WL 1068637, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 29, 2012) (“A prisoner property claim only implicates the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause where the prisoner alleges that prison officials took his personal property and converted it for public use without just compensation.”)

  2. Thomas v. Stevens

    1:22-cv-160 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 16, 2022)

    Roop v. Ryan, No. CV 12-0270-PHX-RCB, 2012 WL 1068637 at *3 (D. Ariz. March 29, 2012). Seizure of convicted prisoners and their personal property are not the kinds of takings that are prohibited by the Fifth Amendment.

  3. Byrd v. Washington

    Case No. 1:20-cv-176 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 1, 2021)

    "A prisoner property claim only implicates the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause where the prisoner alleges that prison officials took his personal property and converted it for public use without just compensation." Roop v. Ryan, No. CV 12-0270-PHX-RCB, 2012 WL 1068637 at *3 (D. Ariz. March 29, 2012). See, e.g., Allen v. Wood, 970 F. Supp. 824, 831 (E.D. Wash. 1997) (prisoner cannot state a Fifth Amendment claim for rejection of his mail where he "fails to show that property he was authorized to receive was taken for public use"); Hines v. Ferguson, No. 19-CV-3139, 2019 WL 3504239 at *1 (E.D. Pa. July 31, 2019) (allegations related to the destruction of inmate property during the transfer of prisoners do not implicate the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause where nothing in the complaint suggests that the prisoner's property was taken for a public purpose).

  4. Adams v. Corr. Emergency Response Team

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-CV-3301 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2019)   Cited 2 times

    Nothing in the Complaint suggests that Adams's property was taken for a public purpose, so the Takings Clause is not implicated here. See Roop v. Ryan, Civ. A. No. 12-0270, 2012 WL 1068637, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 29, 2012) ("A prisoner property claim only implicates the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause where the prisoner alleges that prison officials took his personal property and converted it for public use without just compensation."); Allen v. Wood, 970 F. Supp. 824, 831 (E.D. Wash. 1997) ("Plaintiff fails to show that property he was authorized to receive was taken for public use.").

  5. Thompson v. Ferguson

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-CV-3455 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 5, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    Accordingly, the Takings Clause is not implicated here. See Roop v. Ryan, Civ. A. No. 12-0270, 2012 WL 1068637, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 29, 2012) ("A prisoner property claim only implicates the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause where the prisoner alleges that prison officials took his personal property and converted it for public use without just compensation."); Allen v. Wood, 970 F. Supp. 824, 831 (E.D. Wash. 1997) ("Plaintiff fails to show that property he was authorized to receive was taken for public use."). The Takings Clause applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

  6. Hines v. Ferguson

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-CV-3139 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 30, 2019)   Cited 5 times

    Accordingly, the Takings Clause is not implicated here. See Roop v. Ryan, No. CV 12-0270-PHX-RCB, 2012 WL 1068637, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 29, 2012) ("A prisoner property claim only implicates the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause where the prisoner alleges that prison officials took his personal property and converted it for public use without just compensation."); Allen v. Wood, 970 F. Supp. 824, 831 (E.D. Wash. 1997) ("Plaintiff fails to show that property he was authorized to receive was taken for public use.").

  7. Talley v. Pa. Dep't of Corr.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-1589 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 2, 2019)   Cited 2 times

    Thus, the Takings Clause is not implicated here. See Roop v. Ryan, No. CV 12-0270-PHX-RCB, 2012 WL 1068637, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 29, 2012) ("A prisoner property claim only implicates the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause where the prisoner alleges that prison officials took his personal property and converted it for public use without just compensation."); Allen v. Wood, 970 F. Supp. 824, 831 (E.D. Wash. 1997) ("Plaintiff fails to show that property he was authorized to receive was taken for public use.").

  8. Parrish v. Corr. Emergency Response Team

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-CV-4871 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 12, 2019)   Cited 12 times
    Concluding prisoner plaintiff failed to state claim for a violation of the Fourth Amendment where plaintiff alleged that CERT members destroyed and defaced personal property during the process of transferring plaintiff from SCI Graterford to SCI Phoenix

    Accordingly, the Takings Clause is not implicated here. See Roop v. Ryan, No. CV 12-0270-PHX-RCB, 2012 WL 1068637, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 29, 2012) ("A prisoner property claim only implicates the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause where the prisoner alleges that prison officials took his personal property and converted it for public use without just compensation."); Allen v. Wood, 970 F. Supp. 824, 831 (E.D. Wash. 1997) ("Plaintiff fails to show that property he was authorized to receive was taken for public use.").