Opinion ID: 595042
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Destruction or Confiscation of Property

Text: 8 Plaintiff states that defendants searched his cell and destroyed or removed various items of personal property. Even if this were true, plaintiff's claim fails. In the prison context, even an unauthorized intentional deprivation of property does not amount to a constitutional violation where an adequate post-deprivation remedy is available. Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 129 (1990); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). based on the reasoning that the existence of adequate post-deprivation remedies under state law, WIS.STAT. §§ 810.01, 893.35, 893.51, & 893.52 (1990), precluded plaintiff's claim, summary judgment was granted defendants. In addition, plaintiff failed to dispute that the conduct of the defendants was unauthorized or that predeprivation procedural safeguards were impractical. See Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533-34. Thus, summary judgment was properly granted.