Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/451/527/case.html
Timestamp: 2016-07-24 04:58:31
Document Index: 519398815

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 81', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

Parratt v. Taylor :: 451 U.S. 527 (1981) :: Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center Log In
› Parratt v. Taylor
Parratt v. Taylor 451 U.S. 527 (1981)
U.S. Supreme CourtParratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981)Parratt v. TaylorNo. 79-1734Argued March 2, 1981Decided May 18, 1981451 U.S. 527CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
REHNQUIST, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, STEWART, WHITE, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ., Page 451 U. S. 528 joined. STEWART, J., post, p. 451 U. S. 544, WHITE, J., post, p. 451 U. S. 545, and BLACKMUN, J., post, p. 451 U. S. 545, filed concurring opinions. POWELL, J., filed an opinion concurring in the result, post, p. 451 U. S. 546. MARSHALL, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part., post p. 451 U. S. 554. Page 451 U. S. 529
The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska entered summary judgment for respondent, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed Page 451 U. S. 530 in a per curiam order. 620 F.2d 307 (1980). We granted certiorari. 449 U.S. 917 (1980).
On October 25, 1978, the District Court granted respondent's Page 451 U. S. 531 motion for summary judgment. The District Court ruled that negligent actions by state officials can be a basis for an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; petitioners were not immune from damages actions of this kind; and the deprivation of the hobby kit "implicate[d] due process rights." The District Court explained:
In the best of all possible worlds, the District Court's above-quoted statement that respondent's loss should not go without redress would be an admirable provision to be contained in a code which governed the administration of justice in a civil law jurisdiction. For better or for worse, however, our traditions arise from the common law of case-by-case reasoning and the establishment of precedent. In 49 of the 50 States, the common law system, as modified by statute, constitutional amendment, or judicial decision governs. Coexisting with the 50 States which make it up, and supreme over them to the extent of its authority under Art. IV of the Constitution, is the National Government. At an early period in the history of this Nation, it was held that there was no federal common law of crimes, United States v. Hudson & Goodwin, 7 Cranch 32 (1812), and, since Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64 (1938), there has been no general common law applicable in federal courts merely by reason of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. Therefore, in order properly to decide this case, we must deal not simply with a single, general principle, however just that principle may be in the abstract, but with the complex interplay of the Constitution, Page 451 U. S. 532 statutes, and the facts which form the basis for this litigation.
While we have twice granted certiorari in cases to decide whether mere negligence will support a claim for relief under § 1983, see Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U. S. 555 (1978), and Baker v. McCollan, 443 U. S. 137 (1979), we have in each of those cases found it unnecessary to decide the issue. In Procunier, supra, we held that, regardless of whether the Page 451 U. S. 533 § 1983 complaint framed in terms of negligence stated a claim for relief, the defendants would clearly have been entitled to qualified immunity, and therefore not liable for damages. In Baker, supra, we held that no deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States had occurred, and therefore it was unnecessary to decide whether mere negligence on the part of the actor would have rendered him liable had there been such a deprivation. These two decisions, however, have not aided the various Courts of Appeals and District Courts in their struggle to determine the correct manner in which to analyze claims, such as the present one, which allege facts that are commonly thought to state a claim for a common law tort normally dealt with by state courts, but instead are couched in terms of a constitutional deprivation, and relief is sought under § 1983. The diversity in approaches is legion. See, e.g., Williams v. Kelley, 624 F.2d 695 (CA5 1980); Beard v. Mitchell, 604 F.2d 485 (CA7 1979); Fulton Market Cold Storage Co. v. Cullerton, 582 F.2d 1071 (CA7 1978); O'Grady v. Montpelier, 573 F.2d 747 (CA2 1978); Bonner v. Coughlin, 517 F.2d 1311 (CA7 1975), modified en banc, 545 F.2d 565 (1976); Hampton v. Holmesburg Prison Officials, 546 F.2d 1077 (CA3 1976); Jones v. Marshall, 528 F.2d 132 (CA2 1975); Diamond v. Thompson, 523 F.2d 1201 (CA5 1975); Kimbrough v. O'Neil, 523 F.2d 1057 (CA7 1975); Carter v. Estelle, 519 F.2d 1136 (CA5 1975); Pitts v. Griffin, 518 F.2d 72 (CA8 1975); Russell v. Bodner, 489 F.2d 280 (CA3 1973); Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028 (CA2 1973); McCray v. Maryland, 456 F.2d 1 (CA4 1972); Carter v. Carlson, 144 U.S.App.D.C. 388, 447 F.2d 358 (1971); Madison v. Manter, 441 F.2d 537 (CA1 1971); Howard v. Swenson, 426 F.2d 277 (CA8 1970); Whirl v. Kern, 407 F.2d 781 (CA5 1968); and Striker v. Pancher, 317 F.2d 780 (CA6 1963). We, therefore, once more put our shoulder to the wheel, hoping to be of greater assistance to Page 451 U. S. 534 courts confronting such a fact situation than it appears we have been in the past.
"[i]t is abundantly clear that one reason the legislation was passed was to afford a federal right in federal courts because, by reason of prejudice, passion, neglect, intolerance or otherwise, state laws might not be enforced and the claims of citizens to the enjoyment of rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the Fourteenth Page 451 U. S. 535 Amendment might be denied by the state agencies."
Since this Court's decision in Monroe v. Pape, supra, it can no longer be questioned that the alleged conduct by the petitioners in this case satisfies the "under color of state law" requirement. Petitioners were, after all, state employees in Page 451 U. S. 536 positions of considerable authority. They do not seriously contend otherwise. Our inquiry, therefore, must turn to the second requirement -- whether respondent has been deprived of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
Unquestionably, respondent's claim satisfies three prerequisites of a valid due process claim: the petitioners acted under color of state law; the hobby kit falls within the definition of property; and the alleged loss, even though negligently Page 451 U. S. 537 caused, amounted to a deprivation. [Footnote 3] Standing alone, however, these three elements do not establish a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nothing in that Amendment protects against all deprivations of life, liberty, or property by the State. The Fourteenth Amendment protects only against deprivations "without due process of law." Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. at 443 U. S. 145. Our inquiry therefore must focus on whether the respondent has suffered a deprivation of property without due process of law. In particular, we must decide whether the tort remedies which the State of Nebraska provides as a means of redress for property deprivations satisfy the requirements of procedural due process.
This Court has never directly addressed the question of what process is due a person when an employee of a State negligently takes his property. In some cases, this Court has held that due process requires a predeprivation hearing before the State interferes with any liberty or property interest enjoyed by its citizens. In most of these cases, however, the deprivation of property was pursuant to some established state procedure, and "process" could be offered before any actual deprivation took place. For example, in Mullane v. Page 451 U. S. 538 Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306 (1950), the Court struck down on due process grounds a New York statute that allowed a trust company, when it sought a judicial settlement of its trust accounts, to give notice by publication to all beneficiaries even if the whereabouts of the beneficiaries were known. The Court held that personal notice in such situations was required, and stated that, "when notice is a person's due, process which is a mere gesture is not due process." Id. at 339 U. S. 315. More recently, in Bell v. Burson, 402 U. S. 535 (1971), we reviewed a state statute which provided for the taking of the driver's license and registration of an uninsured motorist who had been involved in an accident. We recognized that a driver's license is often involved in the livelihood of a person, and, as such, could not be summarily taken without a prior hearing. In Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U. S. 67 (1972), we struck down the Florida prejudgment replevin statute which allowed secured creditors to obtain writs in ex parte proceedings. We held that due process required a prior hearing before the State authorized its agents to seize property in a debtor's possession. See also Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U. S. 371 (1971); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254 (1970); and Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U. S. 337 (1969). In all these cases, deprivations of property were authorized by an established state procedure, and due process was held to require predeprivation notice and hearing in order to serve as a check on the possibility that a wrongful deprivation would occur.
We have, however, recognized that postdeprivation remedies made available by the State can satisfy the Due Process Clause. In such cases, the normal predeprivation notice and opportunity to be heard is pretermitted if the State provides a postdeprivation remedy. In North American Cold Storage Co. v. Chicago, 211 U. S. 306 (1908), we upheld the right of a State to seize and destroy unwholesome food without a preseizure hearing. The possibility of erroneous destruction of property was outweighed by the fact that the public health Page 451 U. S. 539 emergency justified immediate action and the owner of the property could recover his damages in an action at law after the incident. In Ewing v. Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc., 339 U. S. 594 (1950), we upheld under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause the summary seizure and destruction of drugs without a preseizure hearing. Similarly, in Fahey v. Mallonee, 332 U. S. 245 (1947), we recognized that the protection of the public interest against economic harm can justify the immediate seizure of property without a prior hearing when substantial questions are raised about the competence of a bank's management. In Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U. S. 503 (1944), we upheld in the face of a due process challenge the authority of the Administrator of the Office of Price Administration to issue rent control orders without providing a hearing to landlords before the order or regulation fixing rents became effective. See also Corn Exchange Bank v. Coler, 280 U. S. 218 (1930); McKay v. McInnes, 279 U.S. 820 (1929); Coffin Brothers & Co. v. Bennett, 277 U. S. 29 (1928); and Ownbey v. Morgan, 256 U. S. 94 (1921). These cases recognize that either the necessity of quick action by the State or the impracticality of providing any meaningful predeprivation process, when coupled with the availability of some meaningful means by which to assess the propriety of the State's action at some time after the initial taking, can satisfy the requirements of procedural due process. [Footnote 4] As we stated in Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., 416 U. S. 600 (1974):
"Petitioner asserts that his right to a hearing before his possession is in any way disturbed is nonetheless Page 451 U. S. 540 mandated by a long line of cases in this Court, culminating in Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U. S. 337 (1969), and Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U. S. 67 (1972). The pre-Sniadach cases are said by petitioner to hold that 'the opportunity to be heard must precede any actual deprivation of private property.' Their import, however, is not so clear as petitioner would have it: they merely stand for the proposition that a hearing must be had before one is finally deprived of his property, and do not deal at all with the need for a pretermination hearing where a full and immediate post-termination hearing is provided. The usual rule has been"
Our past cases mandate that some kind of hearing is required at some time before a State finally deprives a person of his property interests. The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard, and it is an "opportunity which must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U. S. 545, 380 U. S. 552 (1965). However, as many of the above cases recognize, we have rejected the proposition that "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner" always requires the State to provide a hearing prior to the initial deprivation of property. [Footnote 5] This rejection is based in part on the impracticability Page 451 U. S. 541 in some cases of providing any preseizure hearing under a state-authorized procedure, and the assumption that at some time a full and meaningful hearing will be available.
A case remarkably similar to the present one is Bonner v. Coughlin, 517 F.2d 1311 (CA7 1975), modified en banc, 545 F.2d 565 (1976), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 932 (1978). There, a prisoner alleged that prison officials "made it possible, by leaving the door of Plaintiff's cell open, for others without authority to remove Plaintiff's trial transcript from the cell." 517 F.2d at 1318. The question presented was whether negligence may support a recovery under § 1983. Then Judge Stevens, writing for a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, recognized that the question that had to be Page 451 U. S. 542 decided was "whether it can be said that the deprivation was without due process of law.'" Ibid. He concluded:
"'At some point, the benefit of an additional safeguard to the individual affected . . . and to society in terms of Page 451 U. S. 543 increased assurance that the action is just, may be outweighed by the cost.' Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. at 424 U. S. 348. We think that point has been reached in this case. In view of the low incidence of abuse, the openness of our schools, and the common law safeguards that already exist, the risk of error that may result in violation of a schoolchild's substantive rights can only be regarded as minimal. Imposing additional administrative safeguards as a constitutional requirement might reduce that risk marginally, but would also entail a significant intrusion into an area of primary educational responsibility."
Application of the principles recited above to this case leads us to conclude the respondent has not alleged a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although he has been deprived of property under color of state law, the deprivation did not occur as a result of some established state procedure. Indeed, the deprivation occurred as a result of the unauthorized failure of agents of the State to follow established state procedure. There is no contention that the procedures themselves are inadequate, nor is there any contention that it was practicable for the State to provide a predeprivation hearing. Moreover, the State of Nebraska has provided respondent with the means by which he can receive redress for the deprivation. The State provides a remedy to persons who believe they have suffered a tortious loss at the hands of the State. See Neb.Rev.Stat. § 81-8,209 et seq. (1976). Through this tort claims procedure, the State hears and pays claims of prisoners housed in its penal institutions. This procedure was in existence at the time of the loss here in question, but respondent did not use it. It is argued that the State does not adequately protect the respondent's interests, because it provides only for an action against the State, as opposed to its individual employees, Page 451 U. S. 544 it contains no provisions for punitive damages, and there is no right to a trial by jury. Although the state remedies may not provide the respondent with all the relief which may have been available if he could have proceeded under § 1983, that does not mean that the state remedies are not adequate to satisfy the requirements of due process. The remedies provided could have fully compensated the respondent for the property loss he suffered, and we hold that they are sufficient to satisfy the requirements of due process.
It seems to me extremely doubtful that the property loss here, even though presumably caused by the negligence of state agents, is the kind of deprivation of property to which the Fourteenth Amendment is addressed. If it is, then so too would be damages to a person's automobile resulting from Page 451 U. S. 545 a collision with a vehicle negligently operated by a state official. To hold that this kind of loss is a deprivation of property within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment seems not only to trivialize, but grossly to distort, the meaning and intent of the Constitution.
Most importantly, I do not understand the Court to suggest that the provision of "postdeprivation remedies," ante at 451 U. S. 538, within a state system would cure the unconstitutional Page 451 U. S. 546 nature of a state official's intentional act that deprives a person of property. While the "random and unauthorized" nature of negligent acts by state employees makes it difficult for the State to "provide a meaningful hearing before the deprivation takes place," ante at 451 U. S. 541, it is rare that the same can be said of intentional acts by state employees. When it is possible for a State to institute procedures to contain and direct the intentional actions of its officials, it should be required, as a matter of due process, to do so. See Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U. S. 337 (1969); Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U. S. 67 (1972); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254 (1970). In the majority of such cases, the failure to provide adequate process prior to inflicting the harm would violate the Due Process Clause. The mere availability of a subsequent tort remedy before tribunals of the same authority that, through its employees, deliberately inflicted the harm complained of, might well not provide the due process of which the Fourteenth Amendment speaks.
"the petitioners acted under color of state law; the hobby kit falls within the definition of property; and the alleged loss, even though negligently caused, amounted to a deprivation. Page 451 U. S. 547 Ante at 451 U. S. 536-537. It then goes on to reject respondent's claim on the theory that procedural due process is satisfied in such a case where a State provides a 'postdeprivation' procedure for seeking redress -- here, a tort claims procedure. I would not decide this case on that ground, for two reasons. First, the Court passes over a threshold question -- whether a negligent act by a state official that results in loss of or damage to property constitutes a deprivation of property for due process purposes. [Footnote 2/1] Second, in doing so, the Court suggests a narrow, wholly procedural view of the limitation imposed on the States by the Due Process Clause."
The central question in this case is whether unintentional but negligent acts by state officials, causing respondent's loss of property, are actionable under the Due Process Clause. In my view, this question requires the Court to determine whether intent is an essential element of a due process claim, just as we have done in cases applying the Equal Protection Clause [Footnote 2/2] and the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment." [Footnote 2/3] The intent question cannot be Page 451 U. S. 548 given "a uniform answer across the entire spectrum of conceivable constitutional violations which might be the subject of a § 1983 action," Baker v. McCollan, 443 U. S. 137, 443 U. S. 139-140 (1979). Rather, we must give close attention to the nature of the particular constitutional violation asserted in determining whether intent is a necessary element of such a violation.
A "deprivation" connotes an intentional act denying something to someone, or, at the very least, a deliberate decision not to act to prevent a loss. [Footnote 2/4] The most reasonable interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment would limit due process claims to such active deprivations. [Footnote 2/5] This is the view Page 451 U. S. 549 adopted by an overwhelming number of lower courts, which have rejected due process claims premised on negligent acts without inquiring into the existence or sufficiency of the subsequent procedures provided by the State. [Footnote 2/6] In addition, such a rule would avoid trivializing the right of action provided in § 1983. That provision was enacted to deter real abuses by state officials in the exercise of governmental powers. It would make no sense to open the federal courts to lawsuits where there has been no affirmative abuse of power, merely a negligent deed by one who happens to be acting under color of state law. See n. 12, infra. [Footnote 2/7] Page 451 U. S. 550
The Court appears unconcerned about this prospect, probably because of an implicit belief in the availability of state tort remedies in most cases. In its view, such remedies will satisfy procedural due process, and relegate cases of official negligence to nonfederal forums. But the fact is that this rule would "make of the Fourteenth Amendment a font of tort law," Paul v. Davis, 424 U. S. 693, 424 U. S. 701 (1976), whenever a State has failed to provide a remedy for negligent invasions of liberty or property interests. [Footnote 2/8] Moreover, despite Page 451 U. S. 551 the breadth of.state tort remedies, such claims will be more numerous than might at first be supposed. In Kent v. Prasse, 385 F.2d 406 (CA3 1967) (per curiam), for example, a state prisoner was forced to work on a faulty machine, sustained an injury, and brought suit against prison officials. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit noted that the State, unfortunately, did not provide compensation for this injury, but stated:
Id. at 407. [Footnote 2/9] Rather than reject this reasoning, I would adopt the view that negligent official acts do not provide any basis for inquiries Page 451 U. S. 552 by federal courts into the existence, or procedural adequacy, of applicable state tort remedies.
The Due Process Clause imposes substantive limitations on state action, and, under proper circumstances, [Footnote 2/10] these limitations Page 451 U. S. 553 may extend to intentional and malicious deprivations of liberty [Footnote 2/11] and property, [Footnote 2/12] even where compensation is available under state law. The Court, however, fails altogether to discuss the possibility that the kind of state action alleged here constitutes a violation of the substantive guarantees of the Due Process Clause. As I do not consider a negligent act the kind of deprivation that implicates the procedural guarantees of the Due Process Clause, I certainly would not view negligent acts as violative of these substantive guarantees. But the Court concludes that there has been such a deprivation. And yet it avoids entirely the question whether the Due Process Clause may place substantive limitations on this form of governmental conduct.
In sum, it seems evident that the reasoning and decision of the Court today, even if viewed as compatible with our precedents, create new uncertainties as well as invitations to Page 451 U. S. 554 litigate under a statute that already has burst its historical bounds. [Footnote 2/13]
I join the opinion of the Court insofar as it holds that negligent conduct by persons acting under color of state law Page 451 U. S. 555 may be actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Ante at 451 U. S. 534-535. I also agree with the majority that, in cases involving claims of negligent deprivation of property without due process of law, the availability of an adequate postdeprivation cause of action for damages under state law may preclude a finding of a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. I part company with the majority, however, over its conclusion that there was an adequate state law remedy available to respondent in this case. My disagreement with the majority is not because of any shortcomings in the Nebraska tort claims procedure. [Footnote 3/1] Rather, my problem is with the majority's application of its legal analysis to the facts of this case.
It is significant, in my view, that respondent is a state prisoner whose access to information about his legal rights is necessarily limited by his confinement. Furthermore, there is no claim that either petitioners or any other officials informed respondent that he could seek redress for the alleged deprivation of his property by filing an action under the Nebraska tort claims procedure. This apparent failure takes Page 451 U. S. 556 on additional significance in light of the fact that respondent pursued his complaint about the missing hobby kit through the prison's grievance procedure. [Footnote 3/2] In cases such as this, I believe prison officials have an affirmative obligation to inform a prisoner who claims that he is aggrieved by official action about the remedies available under state law. If they fail to do so, then they should not be permitted to rely on the existence of such remedies as adequate alternatives to a § 1983 action for wrongful deprivation of property. Since these prison officials do not represent that respondent was informed about his rights under state law, I cannot join in the judgment of the Court in this case.
Taking property from an individual under color of state law constitutes a Fourteenth Amendment viola...	Facts	Prison officials carelessly lost hobby materials that had been ordered by Parratt, an inmate in Nebr...