IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

MICHAEL TARNECY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 1:16-CV-121

)

JAMIE BAUGHMAN, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Complaint under 42

U.S.C. § 1983, filed by Michael Tarnecy, a pro se prisoner, on

April 7, 2016. (DE #1.) For the reasons set forth below, the

court DISMISSES the action WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

BACKGROUND

Tarnecy is an inmate at the Jay County Security Center (“Jay

County”). On October 3, 2015, he was arrested by Jamie Baughman,

a detective with the Jay County Drug Task Force. Upon searching

Tarnecy, Officer Baughman found and confiscated drugs and drugrelated paraphernalia. Officer Baughman also took $750 that

Tarnecy earned working at Sawyer Drywall. Tarnecy brings a claim

against Officer Baughman for the return of his $750.

DISCUSSION

 The court must review the complaint and dismiss it if the

action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for
relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune

from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. To survive dismissal, the

complaint must state a claim for relief that is plausible on its

face. Bissessur v. Indiana Univ. Bd. of Trs., 581 F.3d 599, 602-03

(7th Cir. 2009). “A claim has facial plausibility when the

plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

misconduct alleged.” Id. at 603. Thus, the plaintiff “must do

better than putting a few words on paper that, in the hands of an

imaginative reader, might suggest that something has happened to

her that might be redressed by the law.” Swanson v. Citibank,

N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 403 (7th Cir. 2010). Nevertheless, the court

must bear in mind that “a pro se complaint, however inartfully

pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal

pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94

(2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted). 

Tarnecy has no constitutional claim for having his money taken

by Officer Baughman.1

 To the extent he claims the defendant took

his money and never returned it, he would have to pursue state

remedies. Though the Fourteenth Amendment provides that state

officials shall not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or

property, without due process of law,” a state tort claims act that

1

Notably, Tarnecy does not suggest that the search of his vehicle was

unconstitutional.

2
provides a method by which a person can seek reimbursement for the

negligent loss or intentional deprivation of property meets the

requirements of the due process clause by providing due process of

law. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (“For intentional,

as for negligent deprivations of property by state employees, the

state’s action is not complete until and unless it provides or

refuses to provide a suitable post deprivation remedy.”). 

Indiana’s tort claims act (INDIANA CODE § 34-13-3-1 et seq.) and

other laws provide for state judicial review of property losses

caused by government employees, and provide an adequate postdeprivation remedy to redress state officials’ accidental or

intentional deprivation of a person’s property. See Wynn v.

Southward, 251 F.3d 588, 593 (7th Cir. 2001) (“Wynn has an adequate

post-deprivation remedy in the Indiana Tort Claims Act, and no more

process was due.”). Thus, the property loss claim will be

dismissed without prejudice so that he can pursue it in state

court. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the court DISMISSES the

action WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DATED: November 21, 2016 /s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United States District Court

3