Bell v. Epps, No. 3:2010cv00344 - Document 43 (S.D. Miss. 2011)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order re 41 MOTION to Dismiss, 1 Complaint. Complaint is hereby dismissed. A separate judgment will be entered. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 12/12/11. (Copy mailed to Plaintiff.) (dfk)

Download PDF
Bell v. Epps Doc. 43 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI JACKSON DIVISION CHARLES SYLVESTER BELL VS. PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO.3:10cv344-FKB CHRISTOPHER EPPS, et al. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, a state inmate, brought this action pursuant to § 1983 alleging that prison officials confiscated his typewriter and failed to return it. Plaintiff and Defendants have each filed motions for summary judgment. In his motion, Plaintiff seeks to establish that the typewriter was confiscated and not returned. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment focuses primarily upon evidence showing that Plaintiff never possessed a typewriter. In any event, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. It is well-settled that intentional deprivations of property by state officials do no violate the constitution if adequate post-deprivation remedies exist. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984). Negligent deprivations likewise do not raise a constitutional claim. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986). Mississippi common law provides adequate remedies for the taking of personal property. Nickens v. Melton, 38 F.3d 183, 185 (5th Cir. 1994). Moreover, the Mississippi Department of Corrections Administrative Remedies Program provides an additional means of obtaining redress for property deprivations. See Hudson, 468 U.S. at 536 n. 15 (inmate grievance procedures put in place by the Dockets.Justia.com prison may constitute an adequate post-deprivation remedy). Accordingly, the Court concludes that this action should be dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A separate judgment will be entered pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. SO ORDERED this the 12th day of December, 2011. /s/ F. Keith Ball ________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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.