Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01119/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01119-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ed Clodfelter
Appellee
Department of Corrections
Appellee
Darryl Fish
Appellee
Frank Gardner
Appellee
Ben Johnson
Appellee
Leroy Mathews
Appellee
Mark McKinna
Appellee
Bill Murray
Appellee
Larry Spurlock
Appellee
Charles Watson
Appellee
O. D. Woolsey
Appellant

Document Text:

FILED 

Uaited States Court of Appeals 

UHITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS iPnth Circuit 

FOR THE TEN'l'B CIRCUIT AUG 11991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

O. D. WOOLSEY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; 

MARK MCKINNA; DARRYL FISH; 

ED CLODFELTER; LEROY MATHEWS; 

CHARLES WATSON; LARRY SPURLOCK; 

BILL MURRAY; BEN JOHNSON; 

and FRANK GARDNER, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 91-1119 

(D. C. No. 90-C-1575) 

(D. Colo.) 

ORDER ARD JUDGMENT* 

Before ARDERSOR, TACHA, and BRORBY, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

* 

The cause is therefore ordered 

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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-1119 Document: 010110130187 Date Filed: 08/01/1991 Page: 1 
Mr. Woolsey, a state prisoner, appeals the denial of relief 

under his prose S 1983 claim for damages. 

Mr. Woolsey was an inmate and was transferred to another 

prison. Mr. Woolsey was not allowed to take his hobby materials 

with him and the prison stored them in a storage locker. The 

storage room was broken into by a person or persons unknown who 

stole most of Mr. Woolsey's property. Approximately $1,200 of his 

property remained while $6,203 worth of his property was taken. 

Mr. Woolsey states he filed suit in state court in 1984 and 

this suit was dismissed for failure to file timely notice. 

According to Mr. Woolsey, the court ordered the prison authorities 

to transfer Mr. Woolsey's remaining property to his new prison and 

in 1987 this was done. Mr. Woolsey charges the property was 

ordered destroyed upon its arrival. 

Mr. Woolsey 

compensation under 

damages in the 

then filed thia 

42 u.s.c. S 19g3_ 

amount of $116,203. 

pro se action seeking 

Mr. Woolsey asked for 

Defendants filed a motion 

asking the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 

After referring the case to a magistrate judge and considering Mr. 

Woolsey's objections, the district court dismissed the action 

reasoning adequate state post deprivation remedies exist for the 

intentional deprivation of private property. The district court 

also rejected Mr. Woolsey's claims for the loss of his property 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-1119 Document: 010110130187 Date Filed: 08/01/1991 Page: 2 
which were grounded upon due process and cruel and unusual 

punishment. 

In his prose appeal to this court, Mr. Woolsey advances the 

same arguments made to the district court and contends he followed 

state procedures, was denied relief, and the federal courts should 

grant relief. He also asserts his state court claim was wrongly 

decided and argues this fact has resulted in his deprivation of 

various Constitutional rights. 

Mr. Woolsey, as so many other prose appellants, misperceives 

the use and purpose of§ 1983. Section 1983 does not exist to 

right every wrong -- it creates no enforceable rights. Section 

1983 serves only to ensure an individual has a cause of action for 

violation of the Constitution and federal laws. Courts have held, 

in this type of case, that the existence of the alternative state 

remedy supplies "due process" and thus there is no "deprivation" 

by the state. Accordingly, in Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 

(1981), where an inmate sued a warden under§ 1983 over the loss 

of a hobby kit, the Court held the existence of a state tort 

claims procedure supplied due process and no federal claim could 

be presented. Parratt applied only to a negligent taking. 

Subsequently, in Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984), the 

Parratt principle was extended to intentional taking. Thus, Mr. 

Woolsey has no claim. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-1119 Document: 010110130187 Date Filed: 08/01/1991 Page: 3 
• 

As Mr. Woolsey's cruel and unusual punishment claim has no 

merit, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED for 

substantially the same reasons therein set forth. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADEBRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-1119 Document: 010110130187 Date Filed: 08/01/1991 Page: 4