Opinion
No. 7:01-CV-226-R
January 30, 2002
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
ON THIS DATE, came onto be considered the papers and pleadings filed in this action, and the Court finds and orders as follows:
This is a complaint filed 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 his personal property was taken or lost by guards at the Allred Unit. Complaint ¶ v. Williams seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. 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).
Williams 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 Defendants exercised unauthorized control over Williams' 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 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 forma 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. Neitike 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 an indisputably meritless legal theory." Niezke, 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.
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).
A copy of this order shall be transmitted to Plaintiff.