FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT MAY 24, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 13450 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 1 4 3 4 3 - C V- KA M A N T O N I O M E N E N D E Z , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s K E E F E S U P P L Y C O M P A N Y , K E E F E C A N T E E N M G R . O .C .I ., O K E E C H O B E E C O R R E C T I O N A L I N S T I T U T I O N , O R L E S T E R D I C K E N S , W a r d e n , J . D . A N D E R S O N , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 24, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , M A R C U S an dK R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es.2

P E R C U R I A M: A nt oni o M e ne nde z , aF l or i das t a t e pr i s one rpr oc e e di ng pr o s e , appe a l s the d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d is m is s a l o f h is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n f o rf a ilu r e to s ta te ac la im up o n w h i c h r e l i e f

ma yb e g r a n t e d . Fo rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w , w e a f

f i rm. I . Ba c k g r o und M enendez fi l ed a § 19 83 ac t i on agai nstK ee fe S up pl y C om pany (“ K ee fe ”) ; K eefe’s canteen m an ag er; O k eech o b ee C o rrect i o n al In st i tu t i o n ; O rl est er D i ck en s, th e p r is o n w a r d e n ; J .D . A n d e r s o n a n dJ o h n o rJ a n e D o e o f th e B o a r do f

I n m a te G r i e va nc e A ppe a l s ; a nd S . M ont i j o- B a na s c o a nd M a rt aV i l l a c ort aof the F l or i da D e p a rtm e n t o f

C o rr e c tio n s ( “D O C ” ) , a lle g in g th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts h a dn e g lig e n tly fa i l ed “ t o p rot ec t , and then repl ac e” hi s “ const i tut i on al l y- prot ec t ed prop erty. ” S p e c if ic a lly , M e n e n d e z a lle g e dth a t o n F e b ru a ry2 6 , 2 0 0 5 , af e llo w in m a te s to le hi s pri son i dent i fi ca t i on card and u se d i tt o charge $47 . 82 w orth o f c om m i ss ary i t em s t o h i s i nm at e a cc ou nt , even tho ug h h e had pers on al l y w arned cant ee n op er at ors of the theftand w as t ol d thatthe card had b ee n d ea ct i vat ed. M enendez further a l l eged thatal tho ug h h e f ol l ow ed al l of the gri evance proce du re s out l i ned bythe D O C , of

f i c i a l s f a i l e d t o r e s t or e the $47. 82 t o hi s a c c ount . I n r e l i e f , he s oughtr e s t i tut i on of

the $47. 82, r e i m bur s e m e ntof the c os t s i nc urr e d i n f

i l i ng the in s ta n t c o m p la in t, a n do th e rm o n e ta ryd a m a g e s .3

A ft erperf

orm i ng the re qu i re d scr ee ni ng un der the P ri son L i t i gat i on R ef orm A ct , 28 U . S . C . § 1 91 5A , the m agi stra t e c ou rtconcl ud ed thatadequat e r em edi es w er e avai l abl e t o M enendez und erst at e l aw , and thu s, the al l eged depri vat i on w as no tcogn i zabl e und er§ 1 98 3. T he m agi stra t e there fore re com m ended that M enendez’ s c om pl ai ntbe di sm i ss ed for f ai l ure t o st at e acl ai m up on w hi ch re l i ef m a ybe gr a nt e d. M e ne nde z obj e c t e d t o the r e c om m e nda t i on, a s s e rt i ng tha tthe st at e had fai l ed t o p rovi de an adequat e post -depri vat i on re m edy, as he had fol l ow ed the D O C ’ s gri evance proce du re s and no tob t ai ned rel i ef . T he di stri ct c o u rt a d o p te dth e m a g is tr a te ’s r e c o m m e n d a tio n a n dd is m is s e dth e c o m p la in t. M e n e n d e z n o w ap p e a ls . I I . D i s c u s s i on W e r e v ie w d e n o v o th e s u as p o n te d is m is s a l o f ac o m p la in t u n d e r§ 1 9 1 5 A . L ea l v. G a. D ep’ tof C orr. , 25 4 F . 3d 12 76 , 12 78 -79 (11 th C i r. 20 01 ). U nd er § 1 91 5A , the m agi stra t e or di stri ctcourti s r equi re d t o scr ee n ci vi l com pl ai nt s f i l ed bypr i s one r s a ga i ns tgove rnm e nt a l of f i c e r s ore nt i t i e s , a nd s ha l l di s m i s s the c o mp l a i n ti f

i ti s f r i v o l o u s , f

a i l s t o s t a t e ac l a i m, o rs e e k s mo n e t a ryr e l i e f f r o m a d e f e n d a n t w h o is im m u n e f r o m s u c h r e lie f

. 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 A ( a ) , ( b ) ( 1 ) , ( b ) ( 2 ) . A com pl ai ntfa i l s t o st at e acl ai m w hen “ i tappears beyonddo ub tthatthe pl ai nt i ff can p rove no se tof fa ct s i n sup po rtof hi s c l ai m w hi ch w ou l d ent i t l e hi m t o rel i ef . ”4

F l i ntv. A B B , Inc. , 33 7 F . 3d 13 26 , 13 28 -29 (11 th C i r. 20 03 ). “ P ro se pl ea di ng s are h e ldto ale s s s tr in g e n t s ta n d a r dth a n p le a d in g s d r a f te db ya tto rn e y s a n dw ill, the r e f or e , be l i be r a l l yc ons true d. ” T a nne nbaum v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 148 F . 3d 1262, 12 63 (11th C i r. 19 98 ). N on ethel es s, fe dera l court s have di sc re t i on t o d i sm i ss pro s e c l a i m s i f

the yl a c k a n a r guabl e ba s i s e i the ri n f a c tori n l a w . N e i t z ke v. W i l l i a m s , 490 U . S . 319, 324- 25, 109 S . C t . 1827, 1831- 32, 104 L . E d. 2d 338 ( 1 9 8 9 ) . T h e D u e P r o c e s s C lau s e o f th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t p r o v id e s th a t n o s ta te s h a ll “d e p r iv e a n yp e r s o n o f lif e , lib e rty , o rp r o p e rty , w ith o u t du e p r o c e s s o f la w . U . S . C on st . am end. X IV , § 1 . “ P roce du ra l du e proces s rul es ar e m eantt o p rot ec t pe r s ons notf

r om the de pr i va t i on, butf r om the m i s t a ke n orunj us t i f i e d de pr i va t i on of l i f e , l i be rty , orpr ope rty . ” C a r e yv. P i phus , 435 U . S . 247, 259, 98 S . C t . 1042, 1050, 55 L . E d. 2d 252 ( 1978) . “ I n thi s c i r c ui t , a§ 1983 c l a i m a l l e gi ng ade ni a l of procedural du e proces s r equi re s proof of three el em ent s: (1) adepri vat i on of a c ons t i tut i ona l l y - pr ot e c t e d l i be rtyorpr ope rtyi nt e r e s t ; ( 2) s t a t e a c t i on; a nd ( 3) c ons t i tut i ona l l y - i na de qua t e pr oc e s s . ” G r a y de n v. R hode s , 345 F . 3d 1225, 1232 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( c itin g C ry d e rv . O x e n d in e , 2 4 F .3 d1 7 5 , 1 7 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) ) . B ut“ l i abi l i tyf

orne gl i ge nt l yi nf

l i c t e d ha rm i s c a t e gor i c a l l ybe ne a th the thres ho l d o f c on st i tut i on al du e proces s[ , ] ” a s “ the C on st i tut i on do es no tgu ar ant ee5

due c a r e on the pa rtof

s t a t e of f i c i a l s . ” S a c r am e nt o v. L e w i s , 523 U . S . 833, 849, 11 8 S . C t . 17 08 , 17 18 , 14 0 L . E d. 2d 10 43 (199 8). T hu s, m er e negl i gentcond uct d o es n o t“ w o r[k ] a d ep ri v at i o n i n th e co n st i tu t i o n al sen se. ” D an i el s v . W i l l i am s, 474 U . S . 327, 330, 106 S . C t . 662, 664, 88 L . E d. 2d 662 ( 1986) . A nd a l though due proces s gener al l y “ ent i t l es an i nd i vi du al t o n ot i ce and som e f orm of hear i ng before s t a t e a c t i on m ayf

i na l l yde pr i ve hi m orhe rof apr ope rtyi nt e r e s t [ , ] ” C ry de r , 24 F . 3 dat1 7 7 , du e p ro cess d o es not re qu i re a p re - de pr i va t i on he a r i ng “ w he r e the h o ld in g o f

s u c h ah e a r in g w o u ldb e im p r a c tic ab le , th a t is , w h e r e th e d e p r iv a tio n is the re sul tof ei ther anegl i gentor an i nt ent i on al depri vat i on of prop erty. ” M c K in n e yv . P a te , 2 0 F .3 d1 5 5 0 , 1 5 6 2 - 6 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) .

“ [ O ] nl yw he n the s t a t e r e f us e s t o pr ovi de apr oc e s s s uf f i c i e ntt o r e m e dythe pr oc e dur a l de pr i va t i on doe s ac ons t i tut i ona l vi ol a t i on a c t i onabl e unde rs e c t i on 1983 a r i s e . ” I d. a t1577. “ [ A ] s l ong a s s om e a de qua t e pos t [ - ] de pr i va t i on r e m e dy i s a va i l abl e , no due pr oc e s s vi ol a t i on ha s oc c urr e d. ” L i nds e yv. S t or e y , 936 F . 2d 5 5 4 , 5 6 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) . H e r e , M e n e n d e z a lle g e s th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts w e r e “n e g lig e n t” in th e ir h a n d lin g o f

th e th e f t o f h is id e n tif

ic a tio n c a r d , th e u n au th o r iz e du s e o f h is in m a te ac coun t , and the “ subsequentdeni al s f or re l i ef ” vi a the D O C ’ s gri evance p r o c e du r e s . B u t, a s s ta te dab o v e , “liab ilityf o rn e g lig e n tlyin f

lic te dh a rm isWe may aff irm the judgment below “on a ny ground that finds support in the re cord.” 1 Lucas v. W.W. Graing er, Inc., 257 F .3d 1249, 1256 (11th Cir. 2001). 6 c a t e g o r i c a l l yb e n e a th th e th r e s h o l do f c o n s t i tu t i o n a l d u e p r o c e s s . ” Le w i s , 5 2 3 U . S. a t 8 4 9 , 1 1 8 S .C t. a t 1 7 1 8 . A s s u c h , M e n e n d e z h a s f a ile dto a lle g e “ad e p r iv a tio n in th e co n st i tu t i o n al sen se, ” an dh i s cl ai m i s n o tco g n i zab l e u n d er § 1 9 8 3 . D an i el s, 1 47 4 U . S . at33 0, 10 6 S . C t . at66 4. A cc ordi ng l y, the di sm i ss al of hi s c om pl ai ntw as prop er . I I I . C on c l u s i on F or the foregoi ng re as on s, w e AF F I RM .