Alonso v. Gorsuch et al, No. 4:2015cv02532 - Document 7 (S.D. Tex. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER dismissing with prejudice 1 Complaint (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Alonso v. Gorsuch et al Doc. 7 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED October 22, 2015 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION LUIS ALONSO, TDCJ #1606717, § § § § § § § § § Plaintiff, V. KEITH GORSUCH, et al., Defendants. 1 David J. Bradley, Clerk CIVIL ACTION NO. H-15-2532 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Complaint plaintiff, Under ("Complaint") , Entry No. 1) . Luis the Alonso Civil (TDCJ Rights #160671 7) , Act, alleging violations of his has u.s.c. 42 civil rights Because plaintiff is incarcerated, filed § 1983 (Docket the court is required to scrutinize the claims and dismiss the Complaint, whole or in part, if it determines that the a Complaint in "is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted" or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). After considering all of the pleadings, the court concludes that this case must be dismissed for the reasons explained below. 1 The Complaint lists the lead defendant as "Kevan Gorsuch," but records attached to the Complaint reflect that this defendant's correct name is Keith Gorsuch. (Docket Entry No. 1, p. 10) The court will use the defendant's correct name for purposes of accurate identification. All page number citations are to the pagination imprinted by the federal court's electronic filing system at the top and right of the document. Dockets.Justia.com I. Background Alonso is currently incarcerated by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division ( "TDCJ") . The defendants are Assistant Warden Keith Gorsuch, Property Officer D. Reese, Correctional Officer V. Jackson, Property Supervisor Alicia Scott, and Assistant Regional Director Matt Gross. 2 Alonso's Complaint concerns the loss of personal property that occurred during his transfer from one prison facility to another. On April 24, 2015, Alonso was transferred from the Coffield Unit to the Huntsville presently Unit confined. 3 en route At to the the Ellis Coffield Unit Unit Reese where he inventoried Alonso's property and noted that he possessed a pair of size Rhino Work Boots and a Timex wrist watch, $20.00 and $100.00, respectively. 4 property during the transport. 5 is 11~ which were valued at Alonso was separated from his At the Huntsville Unit Jackson "reinventoried" Alonso's property outside of his presence. 6 When his property was returned to him Alonso noticed that his boots and wrist watch were missing. 7 Alonso complained to Scott about his 2 Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 4. 3 Id. 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 Id. at 4, 6. 7 Id. at 6. -2- lost property, but she did nothing to resolve his claim. 8 In a Step One grievance Alonso requested the return of his lost property or replacement relief, with concluding responsible for i terns that the of equal there was value, no loss. 9 alleged but evidence Gross Gorsuch denied that agreed TDCJ with was that determination and denied Alonso's Step Two grievance regarding the matter. 10 Alonso contends that the defendants showed "deliberate indifference" by causing his property to be lost and that they have violated his rights by not resolving his claim. 11 Alonso seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $120.00 for his lost work boots and wrist watch, court costs, and "nominal damages" in the amount of $100.00 from each defendant. 12 II. The Supreme Court has Discussion held that a negligent, or even intentional, deprivation of property by state officials that is random unauthorized and does constitutional violation or a § not rise to the level of a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 if state law provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. 8 Id. 9 Id. at 10. lOid. at 12. 11 Id. at 2. 12Id. at 4. -3- See Hudson v. Palmer, 104 S. Ct. 3194, 3204 (1984); see also Parratt v. Taylor, 101 S. Ct. 1908, 1917 (1981), overruled in part on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 106 S. Ct. 662 (1981); see also Stotter v. University of Texas at San Antonio, 508 F.3d 812, 821 (5th Cir. 2007) (explaining the Parratt/Hudson doctrine). Texas provides a remedy for inmates whose property has been taken or destroyed in an unauthorized manner. See Myers v. Klevenhagen, 97 F.3d 91, 95 (5th Cir. 1996); Marshall v. Norwood, 741 F.2d 761, 764 (5th Cir. 1984); Aguilar v. Chastain, 923 S.W.2d 74 0, §§ 743-44 501.007, (Tex. Crim. 501.008. App. 1996) ; see also TEx. Gov' T CODE Because Texas provides an adequate post- deprivation remedy, Alonso's claim for damages concerning his lost property has no basis in federal law. F.3d 541, 543-44 (5th Cir. 1994). See Murphy v. Collins, 26 Accordingly, Alonso has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See id.; see also Nelson v. Director Texas Dep't of Crim. Justice, 124 F. App'x 897, (holding that both the 898, civil 2005 WL 673367 rights lawsuit (5th Cir. and 2005) appeal from dismissal of a prisoner's suit seeking compensatory damages for loss of personal property were "frivolous"); Batiste v. Harris, 519 F. App'x 254, Therefore, U.S.C. § 2013 WL 1777487, *2 (5th Cir. 2013) (same) . Alonso's Complaint will be dismissed pursuant to 28 1915A(b) as legally frivolous. -4- III. Conclusion and Order Based on the foregoing, the court ORDERS that the Complaint Under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Docket Entry No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to the parties. The Clerk will also provide a copy transmission, {1) by regular mail, facsimile the TDCJ - Office of the General Counsel, Austin, Texas 78711, Fax Number {512) or e-mail P.O. 936-2159; to: Box 13084, and {2) the District Clerk for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, 211 West Ferguson, Tyler, Texas 75702, Attention: Manager of the Three-Strikes List. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 22nd day of October, 2015. 7 SIM LAKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -5-
]]>
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.
