Winenger v. St Joseph County Jail, No. 3:2007cv00065 - Document 5 (N.D. Ind. 2007)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915A. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 2/21/07. (sdf)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Winenger v. St Joseph County Jail Doc. 5 case 3:07-cv-00065-RLM-CAN document 5 filed 02/21/2007 page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION HAROLD A. WINENGER, JR., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff v. ST. JOSEPH COUNTY JAIL, Defendant CAUSE NO. 3:07-CV-065 RM OPINION AND ORDER Harold A. Winenger, a pro se prisoner, submitted a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. FED. R. CIV. PRO. 12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal of a complaint, or any portion of a complaint, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Courts apply the same standard under § 1915A as when addressing a motion under Rule 12(b)(6). Weiss v. Colley, 230 F.3d 1027 (7th Cir. 2000). A claim may be dismissed only if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Accordingly, pro se complaints are liberally construed. In order to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Supreme Court requires only two elements: First, the plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him of a federal right. Second, he must allege that the person who has deprived him of the right acted under color of state law. These elements may be put forth in a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). In Dockets.Justia.com case 3:07-cv-00065-RLM-CAN document 5 filed 02/21/2007 page 2 of 3 reviewing the complaint on a motion to dismiss, no more is required from plaintiff's allegations of intent than what would satisfy Rule 8's notice pleading minimum and Rule 9(b)'s requirement that motive and intent be pleaded generally. Alvarado v. Litscher, 267 F.3d 648, 651 (7th Cir. 2001) (citations, quotation marks and ellipsis omitted). Mr. Winenger alleges that the defendants prevented him from attending small claims court and that as a result he lost all of his property. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that state officials shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law , but a state tort claims act that provides a method by which a person can seek reimbursement for the negligent loss or intentional depravation of property meets the requirements of the due process clause by providing due process of law. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) ( For intentional, as for negligent deprivations of property by state employees, the state's action is not complete until and unless it provides or refuses to provide a suitable post deprivation remedy. ). Indiana s tort claims act (INDIANA CODE § 34-13-3-1 et seq.) and other laws provide for state judicial review of property losses caused by government employees, and provide an adequate postdeprivation remedy to redress state officials accidental or intentional deprivation of a person s property. See Wynn v. Southward, 251 F.3d 588, 593 (7th Cir. 2001) ( Wynn has an adequate post-deprivation remedy in the Indiana Tort Claims Act, and no more process was due. ). Whether the St. Joseph County Jail employees intentionally or negligently caused the loss of his property, Mr. Winenger may pursue a state tort claim to attempt to prove his case 3:07-cv-00065-RLM-CAN document 5 filed 02/21/2007 page 3 of 3 claim and recover for that loss. Because of this, he has not been denied due process and he does not have a federal constitutional claim. For the foregoing reasons, this complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. ENTERED: February 21 , 2007 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. Chief Judge United States District Court
]]>
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.
