Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/2687602/Sutton-v-McDonnell-et-al-INMATE-1-Document-No-4
Timestamp: 2019-08-26 05:48:47
Document Index: 96367950

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 41', '§ 1915', '§ 1983']

Original Title: Sutton v. McDonnell et al (INMATE 1) - Document No. 4
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Inmate 1983 Complaint filed by Ronald Sutton that: 1) The plaintiff's claims arising from actions taken against him during his incarceration at the Bibb County Corr. Fac. be dismissed without prejudice to the ri ghts of the plaintiff to file a separate 42 U.S.C. 1983 action in USDC for the Northern District of AL; 2) Cheryl Price, Capt. Freeman and Sgt. McKee be dismissed as parties to this cause of action; 3)The plaintiff's claim challenging the destru ction of his personal property during his confinement at the Kilby Corr. Fac. be dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); 4) The plaintiff's claim challenging the destruction of his legal materials at the Kilby Corr. Fac. be referred back to the undersigned for further proceedings. Objections to R&R due by 5/7/2005. Signed by Judge Susan Russ Walker on 4/26/05. (vmc, ) 2:2005cv00355 Alabama Middle District Court
saveSave Sutton v. McDonnell et al (INMATE 1) - Document No... For Later
Sutton v. McDonnell et al (INMATE 1) Doc.
Case 2:05-cv-00355-MHT-SRW Document 4 Filed 04/26/2005 Page 1 of 5
RONALD SUTTON, #210657, )
v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-355-T
SGT. McKEE, et al., )
In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Ronald Sutton [“Sutton”], a state inmate, challenges
actions taken against him at the Kilby Correctional Facility and the Bibb County Correctional
Facility. The plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the latter correctional institution.
Upon review of the factual allegations presented in this complaint, the court concludes
that, in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties, the plaintiff's claims
arising from actions which occurred during his confinement in the Bibb County Correctional
Facility should be dismissed without prejudice so that Sutton can file a complaint raising
such claims in the appropriate federal court. The court further concludes that the plaintiff’s
challenge to the destruction of his personal property while incarcerated at the Kilby
Correctional Facility is due to be summarily dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).1
A prisoner allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this court will have his complaint screened in
accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This screening procedure requires a federal court
to dismiss a prisoner’s civil action or any claim therein prior to service of process if it determines that the
complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary
damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).
Case 2:05-cv-00355-MHT-SRW Document 4 Filed 04/26/2005 Page 2 of 5
A. The Bibb County Claims
The plaintiff complains that correctional officials at the Bibb County Correctional
Facility destroyed his personal property and legal work. He names Cheryl Price, the warden
of Bibb County Correctional Facility, and Capt. Fredrick Freeman and Sgt. McKee,
correctional officers employed at this facility, as defendants on these claims.
The Bibb County Correctional Facility is located within the jurisdiction of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. A review of the plaintiff's
recitation of the facts indicates that the defendants personally involved in the alleged
violations at the Bibb County Correctional Facility reside in the Northern District of
Alabama. Moreover, the facts and circumstances underlying these claims are separate and
distinct from those claims arising during Sutton’s confinement at the Kilby Correctional
Facility. Thus, it is clear that the claims presented in the instant complaint challenging
actions taken against the plaintiff during his confinement in the Bibb County Correctional
Facility should be dismissed without prejudice to allow the plaintiff an opportunity to file a
complaint raising these claims in the appropriate federal court.
The court construes the claim challenging destruction of Sutton’s legal material as an access to court
Case 2:05-cv-00355-MHT-SRW Document 4 Filed 04/26/2005 Page 3 of 5
Sutton asserts that defendants McDonnell, Bullard and Dunson violated his
constitutional rights when, upon his transfer to Kilby Correctional Facility from Tallahatchie
County Correctional Facility in Tutwiler, Mississippi, they destroyed his personal property
and legal materials. However, the court concludes that under no set of facts has the plaintiff
presented a constitutional violation with respect to the destruction of his personal property.
"If the [items taken from the plaintiff were] not returned because of [the
defendants’] negligence, there has been no unconstitutional deprivation of
property. See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 106 S.Ct. 662, 88 L.Ed.2d
662 (negligent loss of property does not rise to the level of a constitutional
violation.) If [the defendants] intentionally refused to return the [personal
property Sutton claims he was authorized to possess], plaintiff has not alleged
a constitutional violation. In Hudson v. Palmer the Court ruled that an
'unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does not
constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause . . . if a meaningful
postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available.' 104 S.Ct. at 3202, 82
L.Ed.2d at 407.
Rodriguez-Mora v. Baker, 792 F.2d 1524, 1527 (11th Cir. 1986).
The State of Alabama, through its Board of Adjustment, provides a meaningful post-
deprivation remedy for Sutton to seek redress for the loss of his personal property. Ala. Code
§ 41-9-60 et seq. Consequently, the plaintiff's allegation that the defendants violated his
constitutional rights upon the destruction of his personal property, whether such was the
result of negligence or an intentional act, entitles him to no relief from this court. This claim
is therefore subject to dismissal pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Case 2:05-cv-00355-MHT-SRW Document 4 Filed 04/26/2005 Page 4 of 5
1. The plaintiff's claims arising from actions taken against him during his
incarceration at the Bibb County Correctional Facility be dismissed without prejudice to the
rights of the plaintiff to file a separate 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in United States District Court
2. Cheryl Price, Capt. Freeman and Sgt. McKee be dismissed as parties to this cause
3. The plaintiff’s claim challenging the destruction of his personal property during
his confinement at the Kilby Correctional Facility be dismissed with prejudice in accordance
4. The plaintiff’s claim challenging the destruction of his legal materials at the Kilby
Correctional Facility be referred back to the undersigned for further proceedings.
ORDERED that on or before May 7, 2005 the parties shall file objections to the
Case 2:05-cv-00355-MHT-SRW Document 4 Filed 04/26/2005 Page 5 of 5
DONE, this 26th day of April, 2005.
Documents Similar To Sutton v. McDonnell et al (INMATE 1) - Document No. 4
WARDRICK v. ROBARE et al - Document No. 2
Shabazz v. Glover et al (INMATE 2)(JC) - Document No. 3