Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03007/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03007-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

,. 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

ROBERT FRANCIS SMITH, JR., 

Plaintiff-Appellant. 

FILED 

Ucited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

JUN 2 2 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

RAY ROBERTS and A. J. TAYLOR, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

Nos. 90-3007 and 90-3028 

(D.C. No. 89-3056-S) 

(D. Kansas) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

The appellant Robert F. Smith is an inmate at the Kansas 

State Penitentiary at Lansing, Kansas. He appeals from the 

district court's dismissal of his claim against prison director 

Raymond Roberts and correctional officer A.J. Taylor. The essence 

of his complaint is that, when he was being moved from his cell to 

a segregation unit for disciplinary purposes, Taylor supervised an 

improper inventory of his personal belongings, resulting in the 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-3007 Document: 010110036916 Date Filed: 06/22/1990 Page: 1 
-

unexplained loss of three large-print Bibles from which he read 

daily. According to the prison's investigatory report, the 

packing officer told officials that all property found in the cell 

had been packed and that what appeared on the inventory sheet was 

all there was. 

Prison director Roberts disapproved Smith's claim for 

reimbursement or replacement of the personal property on the 

grounds that (l} no negligence was discovered, (2) Smith had not 

indicated that he had notified the officer of any missing property 

when he received the property inventory form, and (3) Smith's 

signature was not on the inventory form. Thereafter, Smith filed 

a section 1983 claim, alleging that, in violation of prison 

regulations, he was neither shown the inventory form at the time 

the inventory was conducted nor asked to sign it. He claimed that 

loss of his Bibles deprived him of his constitutional rights, 

i.e., deprived him of his property without due process and denied 

his first amendment freedom to exercise his religion, both of 

which also constituted cruel and unusual punishment. 

The district court dismissed the action and denied all 

relief, concluding that Smith might have a negligence claim that 

could be brought in state court but did not have a section 1983 

claim. Smith appeals~ se. The appellees notified this court 

that they would neither be entering their appearance nor filing a 

response brief. 

Accepting Smith's allegations as true, we nonetheless affirm 

the district court's decision that the allegation against Taylor 

fails to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3007 Document: 010110036916 Date Filed: 06/22/1990 Page: 2 
Moreover, assuming that Roberts' action in disapproving the 

property claim constituted involvement sufficient to bring him as 

a party before the court, we nonetheless conclude that the 

allegations against Roberts also do not rise to the level of a 

constitutional deprivation. Smith did not allege that either the 

"illegal confiscation'' of his Bibles or Roberts' disapproval of 

his property claim was anything more than negligent. Assuming 

arguendo that loss or confiscation of the Bibles might constitute 

First, Fourteenth, or Eighth Amendment violations under some 

circumstances, nonetheless, ordinary negligence does not rise to 

the level of a constitutional deprivation. See Daniels v. 

Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986); Davidson v Cannon, 474 U.S. 344 

(1986). See also Whitley v. Albers, 474 U.S. 344 (1986). 

Dismissal AFFIRMED. The docket fee is waived. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court: 

Stephen H. Anderson, 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-3007 Document: 010110036916 Date Filed: 06/22/1990 Page: 3