Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rosivito Hoskins, #06048-027 v. Officer Craig

November 15, 2011

ROSIVITO HOSKINS, #06048-027 PLAINTIFF,
v.
OFFICER CRAIG, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murphy, District Judge:

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, an inmate in the United States Penitentiary in Marion, Illinois (USP Marion), brings this action for alleged violations of his constitutional rights by persons acting under the color of federal authority. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:

(a) Screening.-- The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

(b) Grounds for Dismissal.-- On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint--

(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or

(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A. An action or claim is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Upon careful review of the complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; this complaint contains claims that cannot be dismissed at this time.*fn1

FACTS ALLEGED IN COMPLAINT

In May 2010, Plaintiff was transferred to the segregation housing unit in USP Marion. Defendant Craig was charged with packing Plaintiff's property and moving it to Plaintiff's new cell. During the packing process, Defendant Craig threw numerous property items in the trash and damaged Plaintiff's radio, photo album, and transcript cover. Plaintiff alleges that the total value of the trashed and damaged property totals at least $4,149.

Because some of the property that was destroyed was of sentimental value, such as photos and news clippings, Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress because of the loss. This stress has caused Plaintiff to experience insomnia and severe headaches.

DISCUSSION

Count 1: Property

Plaintiff alleges that he was deprived of personal property when Defendant Craig threw many items belonging to Plaintiff in the trash and damaged other items. Plaintiff suggests that these actions were intentionally taken by Defendant Craig in an effort to prevent Plaintiff from receiving all of his personal property. Plaintiff claims that this deprivation occurred without any procedure, in violation of his personal property rights.

The Supreme Court has held that deprivation of an inmate's property does not violate the due process clause if the government provides an adequate remedy. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 536 (1984). The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held that federal prisoners may bring suit, pursuant to the Federal Torts Claim Act, for injuries sustained through the negligent acts of prison officials. Palay v. United States, 349 F.3d 418, 425 (7th Cir. 2003) (discussing United States v. Muniz, 374 U.S. 150 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.