Jones v. Indiana Dept of Correction et al, No. 3:2014cv01875 - Document 9 (N.D. Ind. 2014)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 10/1/2014. (rmc)

Download PDF
Jones v. Indiana Dept of Correction et al Doc. 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION DAVID JONES, Plaintiff, v. INDIANA DEPT. OF CORRECTION, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 3:14 CV 1875 OPINION AND ORDER David Jones, a pro se prisoner, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendant State prison officials are garnishing his inmate trust account to pay the medical bills of an inmate whom he injured. A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that state officials shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. However, 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); 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 Dockets.Justia.com due. ). Here, Jones is alleging the defendants are taking his money. However, because the State of Indiana provides him with a means to obtain redress for his loss, he has not been denied due process and does not state a claim for a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. For the foregoing reasons this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. SO ORDERED. Date: October 1, 2014 s/ James T. Moody JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY 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.