Vincente Ortiz v. Giles W. Dalby Corrtl Facil, et al, No. 10-10296 (5th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 10-10296 Document: 00511247641 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/29/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 10-10296 Summary Calendar September 29, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk VINCENTE ORTIZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GILES W. DALBY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; S. A. HOLENCIK; WARDEN L. J. RASBEARY; ASSOCIATE WARDEN H. BRYAN, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:07-CV-261 Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Vincente Ortiz, formerly federal prisoner # 64845-208, appeals the district court s dismissal of his complaint brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), in which he alleged that prison officials negligently or maliciously lost his personal property and caused him psychological impairment and an inability to trust authority. The district court, concluding that Ortiz had failed to show a due process * Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. Case: 10-10296 Document: 00511247641 Page: 2 No. 10-10296 Date Filed: 09/29/2010 violation, dismissed the complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Because the district court cited 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A, and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, we review the dismissal de novo. Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005). The negligent deprivation of property by a government official does not amount to a due process violation. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 332-33 (1986). Moreover, Oritz has failed to state a claim that correctional officers intentionally deprived him of his property. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2

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.