Unpublished Dispositionfayard E. Wilson, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Dale Foltz, Defendant-appellee, 833 F.2d 1014 (6th Cir. 1987)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - 833 F.2d 1014 (6th Cir. 1987) Nov. 16, 1987

Before MERRITT and ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judges, and CELEBREZZE, Senior Circuit Judge.


ORDER

This pro se Michigan state prisoner appeals the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. Upon consideration of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).

Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Plaintiff has failed to adequately state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for denial of procedural due process in the alleged deprivation of his typewriter and legal documents. He alleged a random and unauthorized deprivation of property contrary to state law, policy or procedure which could not have been anticipated by state authorities. See Davis v. Robbs, 794 F.2d 1129 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 107 S. Ct. 592 (1986); Four Seasons Apartment v. City of Mayfield Heights, 775 F.2d 105 (6th Cir. 1985). Plaintiff failed to adequately plead and prove the inadequacy of state post-deprivation procedures and therefore failed to state a federal cause of action for denial of procedural due process. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984); Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981); Barnier v. Szentmiklosi, 810 F.2d 594 (6th Cir. 1987).

Additionally, plaintiff has failed to adequately demonstrate a causal connection between the alleged denial of access to the courts and the delay and destruction of his property. See Jones v. Sherrill, No. 85-5828 (6th Cir. Sept. 2, 1987); Nishiyama v. Dickson County, 814 F.2d 277 (6th Cir. 1987) (en banc). Plaintiff's complaint further fails to assert that the documents were essential to a pending proceeding, and therefore also fails to assert a cognizable constitutional violation of his right to access to the courts. See Hossman v. Spradlin, 812 F.2d 1019 (7th Cir. 1987).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. Rule 9(b) (5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.