Opinion ID: 711701
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Confiscation of Property from Abate's Cell

Text: 21 Abate asserts that on October 23, 1988 Sergeant Stacey confiscated several magazine articles from his cell. Regardless of the factual dispute concerning the nature of the property confiscated from Abate's cell, intentional and negligent deprivations of property do not constitute deprivations of due process where (1) the deprivation is unauthorized by state procedure and (2) a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1983). 22 Here, Abate alleges that the deprivation of property was unauthorized by prison regulations; in addition, he has set forth no evidence to show that meaningful postdeprivation remedies are not available. His sole assertion regarding his postdeprivation remedy is that he should have been provided a receipt, but was not. This allegation alone is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact on this claim, as Abate provides no evidence that he attempted to use the remedies available to obtain a receipt or obtain his property. 5