Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_04-cv-00078/USCOURTS-azd-4_04-cv-00078-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

The Court has held that the Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies given

Defendants' status report filed on February 7, 2006, reurging the Motion to Dismiss, treating the

Warden's response of January 23, 2006, as the final determination regarding Plaintiff's Complaint.

There would be no point in completing the last two appellate steps in the formal administrative

review process.

WO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mark Campbell, 

Plaintiff,

v.

J. Chaves, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 04-78 TUC DCB

ORDER

On February 14, 2006, the Court rejected the Plaintiff's assertion that the response

from the Warden at the Maxwell prison was an improper administrative response by the

Defendants. The Court found that the Plaintiff had exhausted his administrative remedies.1

On February 14, 2006, this Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file a Response to

Defendants' request for dismissal of this action urged in its Status Report filed on February

7, 2006, which the Court treated as a Motion for Summary Judgment. Specifically, the Court

directed the Plaintiff to respond to arguments and evidence presented by the Defendants in

the following documents: Defendants' Status Report filed February 7, 2006 (Status Report),

the Supplemental Status Report filed on January 23, 2006 (Supp. Status Report), and the

Motion for Reconsideration filed on December 27, 2005.

Case 4:04-cv-00078-DCB Document 58 Filed 03/23/06 Page 1 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Because the Court finds the case administratively resolved, it does not reach Defendants'

argument that injunctive relief cannot be had against either Defendant Hardesty or Hunt to provide

the relief requested by the Plaintiff: ". . . to develop and implement a procedure where future

property losses occurring between contract BOP facilities and the BOP facilities during routine

transfers can be invoked by inmates who suffer losses." (First Amended Complaint, filed July 22,

2004, at 7.) Defendant Hardesty is a Corrections Officer. Defendant Hunt is no longer the Warden

at FCI Safford. Neither Defendant is responsible for developing and implementing policies and

procedures at FCI Safford.

However, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b) provides for amendment of the pleadings to conform to the

evidence and such amendment may be in order even at the time of trial or even after entry of

judgment. The court may allow the pleadings to be amended and "shall do so freely when the

presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby." Id. The Court need not

determine whether amendment of the Complaint under Rule 15(b) could serve to add the current

Warden of FCI Safford as a Defendant because the Court finds that this case is administratively

resolved and grants summary judgment for Defendants.

2

On February 25, 2006, Plaintiff sent his Response to the Defendants and instead of

filing the Response with the Clerk of the Court, the Plaintiff sent it to the United States

Marshall. Consequently, the Court did not receive the original for filing nor the Court's copy

for review. The Defendants filed a Reply on March 9, 2006, which was the first notice to the

Court that a Response had been made by the Plaintiff. The Court has obtained a copy of the

Plaintiff's Response from the Defendants and shall have it filed in the case by the Clerk of

the Court. The Defendants filed a Reply on March 9, 2006. The Motion for Summary

Judgment is fully briefed.

The Court finds that this matter has been resolved administratively and grants

summary judgment for Defendants.2

 

The Plaintiff's Damage Claim

The Plaintiff admits that pursuant to a settlement agreement with GEO Group,

operators of FCI Taft, he has received $113.40, payment in full, for the lost property that is

the subject of this action. (Response filed February 25, 2006, at 6.) Plaintiff alleges that he

was NOT notified that the money had been deposited in his account, so he was unaware that

the matter was resolved until he recently checked his Trust Fund Account balance. The

Court notes, however that the Plaintiff and GEO Group stipulated to GEO Group's dismissal

Case 4:04-cv-00078-DCB Document 58 Filed 03/23/06 Page 2 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

from this action on October 4, 2005, and GEO Group's attorney, Pari Scroggin, attests that

Plaintiff was paid on or about October 4, 2005. (Motion for Reconsideration, filed December

27, 2005, Scroggin Affidavit at 2.) On December 27, 2005, Defendants filed a Motion for

Reconsideration based on GEO Group's payment to the Plaintiff. Id. Regardless of when

Plaintiff received payment for his lost property, he now concedes that his damage claim is

resolved.

Plaintiff's settled damage claim includes his request for reimbursement of the cost

of this litigation and his claim for punitive damages because GEO Group/FCI Taft was

responsible for the loss of Plaintiff's property. Defendant GEO Group's failure to timely

resolve Plaintiff's property claim resulted in his filing this law suit. The Court basis these

findings on the following evidence. 

Sometime around July 7, 2003, Plaintiff was transferred from FCI Taft, a private

contract facility, to FCI Safford, a Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facility. His personal property

was inventoried at FCI Taft and shipped to him at FCI Safford, where it was again

inventoried as received. The inventory for the shipment showed that all items were shipped,

but the inventory at FCI Safford showed that the following items were missing: 1) one pair

of NIKE tennis shoes, 2) one pair corduroy house slippers, 3) one towel and 4) twenty .37

cent stamps.

On July 22, 2003, Plaintiff filed his administrative tort claim under the Federal Tort

Claims Act (FTCA) for compensation for the lost property, noting the above facts and the

following: "When the boxes were opened by the Safford prison staff on July 10, 2003 and

inventoried the property received four items were missing: . . .. These items were listed by

the Taft prison staff as being placed in the boxes, but were not in the boxes when opened in

Safford." (Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (P's MSJ), filed July 5, 2005, Ex. 5:

Claim for Damage, Injury, or Death.) Defendants denied the federal tort claim because the

alleged loss of personal property resulted from events at FCI Taft, and damages recoverable

Case 4:04-cv-00078-DCB Document 58 Filed 03/23/06 Page 3 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

under the FTCA do not include losses resulting from acts or omissions committed by private

contractors or contract staff, such as GEO Group/FCI Taft. Id. at Ex. 12.

Supporting the conclusion that FCI Taft was responsible for Plaintiff's lost property

is his letter to FCI Taft on July 23, 2003, regarding his claim. He wrote: "The BOP staff who

opened and inventoried my property when the boxes were received at Safford FCI noted the

missing property. This was done in my presence. The staff noted the missing property. . .

" Id. at Ex. 7. 

On February 1, 2004, after GEO Group/FCI Taft failed to respond to Plaintiff, he

asked for reconsideration of the denial of the federal tort claim.

He based his request for reconsideration on the following:

BOP is the contract administrator for the Wachenhut operations of Taft FCI.

Additionally, my transfer was controlled by the BOP and BOP procedures

and forms were used to facilitate my routine transfer to Safford FCI. I have

repeatedly written to Wachenhut personnel at both Taft FCI and their

corporate headquarters. I have received no responses from any party. As

contract administrator for the Taft FCI, you have oversight responsibilities

to ensure that Wachenhut complies with BOP policies and federal laws.

Your oversight responsibilities for Safford are self-evident.

(Ds' Motion to Dismiss (Ds' MD), filed June 2, 2005 at Ex. C.) Stating that he did not know

who exactly the responsible party was, either Taft FCI or Safford FCI, Plaintiff concluded

that one of the two most definitely was because his property was missing. Id. Ignoring the

Plaintiff's complaint that he had been unable to secure a post-deprivation remedy for his lost

property from FCI-Taft, Defendant asserted that he presented no new argument or evidence

and denied reconsideration. Id.

Accordingly when Plaintiff filed his law suit for damages related to the lost property,

he also charged Defendants with failing to provide any type of administrative forum in which

to bring and resolve his claims. (First Amended Complaint, filed July 22, 2004.) Plaintiff

argues that Defendants must have a policy and procedure for addressing lost property claims

by inmates housed in private contract facilities for property that is lost when prisoners are

transferred from the private contract facility to a BOP facility. "The Fifth and Fourteenth

Case 4:04-cv-00078-DCB Document 58 Filed 03/23/06 Page 4 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 5

Amendments to the Constitution prohibit federal and state actors from depriving a person of

property without due process of law." . . . "[W]here a state employee intentionally and

without authorization deprives a person of his property, the employee does not violate the

Due Process Clause if a meaningful post-deprivation remedy for the loss is available."

(Screening Order, filed October 20, 2004 at 2-3.) This is the sole issue remaining in this

case.

Here, it is undisputed that the transfer of Plaintiff from FCI Taft to FCI Safford

resulted in his loss of property. Defendant Hunt, Warden of FCI-Safford at the time of

Plaintiff's transfer, was responsible for the administrative forums available or not available

to Plaintiff at FCI Safford at that time, which included administrative procedures for federal

tort claims under the FTCA and The Administrative Remedy Procedure. Plaintiff was

provided information regarding the Administrative Remedy Program on July 8, 2003. (Supp.

Status Report, Ex. A: Carney Decl. at 5 (citing Institution Admission and Orientation

Program Checklist)). It is undisputed that Defendant Hardesty provided Plaintiff with the

mis-directive to file a federal tort claim to receive reimbursement for his lost property. 

Neither forum was adequate to secure post-deprivation relief for property lost at FCI Taft,

a private contract facility. 

Administrative Response to Plaintiff's Policy and Procedural Challenge

On December 30, 2005, the Court stayed this case pending remand for administrative

review and for an administrative decision on the merits. (Order, filed December 30, 2005,

at 12.) The Court anticipated that Plaintiff's damage claim would be, as it has been, resolved

administratively "in light of GEO Group/Taft-FCI's offer to reimburse Plaintiff for his

missing property. Id. The Court assumed "that there are procedures in place to resolve

property losses that occur when prisoners are transferred from one facility to another,

including transfers from private contract facilities, like Taft-FCI." Id. On January 23, 2006,

Case 4:04-cv-00078-DCB Document 58 Filed 03/23/06 Page 5 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Describing Bureau of Prisons Matters as including decisions involving taking inmate

property and that procedures are intended to include appeals where theft/conversion of an inmate's

money or property by GEO or GEO/Taft staff is alleged. Policy and Procedure Manual, § 12.006,

§ 542.14(A)(6).

6

the Warden at the facility where Plaintiff is currently incarcerated filed a Response to

Plaintiff's claims. (Status Report at Ex. A: Administrative Response.)

Defendants administrative response to Plaintiff's policy and procedural challenge,

was as follows: "We have determined that it is unnecessary to establish a new policy

[addressing property losses between private and federal prisons]. Under the current policy,

if a BOP employee's negligence results in the loss of property, the appropriate procedure is

to file a tort claim under the FTCA. Regarding private contract facilities such as FCI Taft,

they already have procedures in place wherein an inmate may submit a claim for lost

property based on the negligence of their staff." Id.

In Defendants' Supplemental Status Report, Defendants attached the Policy and

Procedural Manual for FCI Taft which reflects that there are administrative procedures in

place to resolve loss or theft of an inmate's personal property at FCI Taft. (Ds' Supp. Status

Report at Ex. A(3): Policy and Procedure Manual, § 12.006 at V (§542.11) (May 21, 2004,

superceding June 12, 2003) (BOP concurrence June 2. 2004)). Pursuant to the FCI Taft

Policy and Procedural Manual, any response by the Warden of FCI Taft to a claim regarding

lost property3

 is appealable as a Bureau of Prisons Matter, to the Privatization Administrator

within 30 calendar days of the date of the Warden's response. Id. at § 542.15(A)(1)(6). If

denied by the Privatization Administrator, lost property determinations may be appealed to

the National Inmate Appeals Administrator. Id. at § 542.15(A)(2).

Defendants assert: "The procedures are such that prisoners may make administrative

remedy claims to a GEO Group Administrative Remedy Coordinator for property lost or

taken at a GEO Group facility and appeal those claims to the National Inmate Appeal

Administrator." (Ds' Supp. Status Report at 3 (citing Carney Affidavit)) Matthew Carney,

Case 4:04-cv-00078-DCB Document 58 Filed 03/23/06 Page 6 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 7

Supervisory Attorney Advisor assigned to the federal correctional institutions in Phoenix,

Safford, and Tucson, employed as an Attorney Advisor for the Federal Bureau of Prisons for

14 years, attests that the TCI (FCI Taft) procedures are available to address loss or theft of

inmate personal property involving FCI Taft. Id. at Ex. A: Carney Affidavit at 6. Soon after

the Plaintiff filed this law suit, Mr. Carney contacted FCI Taft and was advised that it had

had problems with inmates stealing other inmates' personal property from a storage area and

advised that it would submit Plaintiff's claim of lost property for payment. Id.at 7. Plaintiff's

claim was so submitted and paid. 

In spite of having been paid for his claim by Defendant GEO Group/FCI Taft,

Plaintiff argues that the scope of the FCI Taft Policy and Procedures do not apply to inmates

like himself who are confined in other facilities. He cites to subsection B, Purpose and Scope

§ 542.10 of the Policy and Procedure Manual, which expressly limits its procedures at issue

here to "not apply to inmates confined in other non-federal facilities." (Response, filed

February 9, 2006, at 4-5; Response filed February 25, 2006, at 5-6 (referring to Policy and

Procedure Manual, § 542.10(B)). Plaintiff misconstrues this limitation. It only makes the

Policy and Procedure Manual exclusive to FCI Taft and not applicable to other non-federal

private facilities contracting with BOP. (Ds' Supp. Status Report at Ex. A: Policy and

Procedure Manual, § 542.10(B)). Inmates like the Plaintiff may rely on the provisions

contained in the FCI Taft Policy and Procedure Manual. For example, the FCI Taft Policy

and Procedure Manual provides: "Inmates transferred to another facility will result in the

response to their submitted request being forwarded to their new facility." Id. at VII, §

542.14(E). 

Plaintiff, however, raises a legitimate concern if the provisions in FCI Taft Policy

and Procedure Manual, including any claim forms or other procedural requisites, are not

available to, or cannot be obtained, by inmates housed at FCI Safford. Any impediment

caused by the action or inaction of FCI Safford staff, such as the Defendants, is a violation

Case 4:04-cv-00078-DCB Document 58 Filed 03/23/06 Page 7 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 8

of the inmate's constitutional rights. In other words: As long as inmate counselors at FCI

Safford, like Defendant Hardesty, know to refer inmates like the Plaintiff to the FCI Taft

Policy and Procedure Manual provisions and forms, there are adequate procedures in place

to secure Plaintiff's due process property rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the

Constitution. Unlike the evidence presented by Defendants regarding dissemination of

information to FCI Safford inmates regarding the administrative procedures under the FTCA

and the Administrative Remedy Program, Defendants do not present any evidence regarding

dissemination of the FCI Taft Policy and Procedure Manual to inmates like the Plaintiff. The

Court, however, assumes that Correction Officers, like Defendant Hardesty, are

knowledgeable regarding it, and this is enough.

The administrative response to Plaintiff's policy and procedural challenge resolves

this case: "Under the current policy, if a BOP employee's negligence results in the loss of

property, the appropriate procedure is to file a tort claim under the FTCA. Regarding private

contract facilities such as FCI Taft, they already have procedures in place wherein an inmate

may submit a claim for lost property based on the negligence of their staff." (Status Report

at Ex. A: Administrative Response.) Conditioned on Defendants presenting evidence to this

Court that Correction Officers, like Defendant Hardesty, know to refer inmates like the

Plaintiff to the FCI Taft Policy and Procedure Manual, this case is dismissed. Summary

judgment may be granted for Defendants.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall file the attached copy of

Plaintiff's "Response to Defendants' Renewed Motion to Dismiss and Status Report" as the

original and docket it as filed by Plaintiff on February 25, 2006.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants' request for dismissal reurged

in Defendants' Status Report, treated by the Court as a Motion for Summary Judgment

(document 52) is conditionally GRANTED.

Case 4:04-cv-00078-DCB Document 58 Filed 03/23/06 Page 8 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall have 30 days from the filing

date of this order to provide evidence that correction officers, like Defendant Hardesty, know

to refer inmates like the Plaintiff to the FCI Taft Policy and Procedure Manual, including its

procedural requisites to initiate a claim and requisite forms.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that subsequent to Defendants filing such evidence

with the Court, Judgment shall be entered for Defendants accordingly.

DATED this 22nd day of March, 2006.

Case 4:04-cv-00078-DCB Document 58 Filed 03/23/06 Page 9 of 9