Spencer v. MD Correctional Institute, Jessup, No. 1:2009cv02431 - Document 4 (D. Md. 2009)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard D Bennett on 9/29/09. (c/m af 9/30/09)(amf, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/1/2009 (bmh, Deputy Clerk).

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND JAMES SPENCER * Plaintiff, * v. * MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION JESSUP Civil Action Case No. RDB-09-2431 (Consolidated Case: RDB-09-2456) * * Defendant. *** MEMORANDUM OPINION The above-captioned case was filed on September 15, 2009, together with a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and a Motion to Appoint Counsel. Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at Patuxent Institution, alleges that his property was lost by staff at Maryland Correctional Institution Jessup (MCIJ). Paper No. 1. He seeks monetary damages for the loss of his property. In the case of lost or stolen property, sufficient due process is afforded to a prisoner if he has access to an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U. S. 527, 542-44 (1981), overruled on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U. S. 327 (1986). The right to seek damages and injunctive relief in Maryland courts constitutes an adequate post deprivation remedy.1 See Juncker v. Tinney, 549 F. Supp. 574, 579 (D. Md. 1982).2 Thus, the complaint presented here shall be dismissed under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992); 1 Plaintiff may avail himself of remedies under the Maryland=s Tort Claims Act and through the Inmate Grievance Office. 2 Although Juncker dealt with personal injury rather than property loss, its analysis and conclusion that sufficient due process is afforded through post deprivation remedies available in the Maryland courts also applies to cases of lost or stolen property, given Juncker=s reliance on Parratt in dismissing plaintiff=s due process claim. Cochran v. Morris, 73 F.3d 1310, 1315 (4th Cir. 1996); Nasim v. Warden, 64 F.3d 951, 955 (4th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff is hereby notified that he may be barred from filing future suits in forma pauperis, absent a showing of imminent danger, if he continues to file federal civil rights actions that are subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted under '1915(e) or under Fed .R.Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A separate Order follows. /s/ ______________________________ RICHARD D. BENNETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE September 29, 2009 Date 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.