Amicus Brief — Parratt v. Taylor

MICHAEL RODAK, JR., cLER

NO. 79-1734 |

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1980

ROBERT PARRATT AND

FRANCES LUGENBILL,

Petitioners,

V.

BERT TAYLOR, JR.,

Respondent.

BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF

THE STATE OF NEBRASKA, PETITIONER

MARK WHITE PAUL R. GAVIA

Attorney General of Texas Chief, State & County Affairs

JOHN W. FAINTER, JR. BARBARA C. MARQUARDT

First Assistant Assistant Attorney General

RICHARD E. GRAY, III P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station

Executive Assistant Austin, Texas 78711

(512) 475-3131

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae

ee

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether simple negligence, if proven, may form

the basis of a judgment under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

2. Whether in a property context a post deprivation

state remedy is all the process that the Fourteenth

Amendment requires.

ere

SUBJECT INDEX

Page

ijk ot Ge we ites yy) -. Serre for rrr ili

QUESTIONS PRESENTED once ccscccccccasccasesesconenes i

AUTHORITY TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF ........ 1

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE 2... ccscccvciscsccccccces 1

ope ye la ee iy) oe |) errr 2

ARGUMENT OF AMICUS CURIAE ...............00e eee, 2

CRIN sw accaseblbascusdne comand acvecbtexeedenbause 5

-iii-

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Case Page

Beard v. Mitchell, 604 F.2d 485 (7th Cir. 1978) .............. 2

Bonner v. Coughlin, 517 F.2d 1311 (7th Cir. 1975),

modified en banc, 545 F.2d 565 (1976), cert. den..,

Ny UNTO CONS Oa Waser etow ab awkeads by oGbd esos abs 2

Carey v. Piphus, 486 U.S. 247 (1978)... oo... cc ccccsccccpeccs 2

Howard v. Higgins, 379 F.2d 227 (10th Cir. 1967) ........... 5

Howard v. Swenson, 426 F.2d 277 (8th Cir.),

UG, MP Ss ENE OTOD © ivenccccccsnapeccaccecisuce 5

Howell v. Cataldi, 464 F.2d 272 (3rd Cir. 1972) .............. 3

Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 697 (1977) ...............005. 4

Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028 (2d Cir. 1972),

cert. den. sub. nom., Employee-Officer John v.

ED, EP, Ghee PRUNUED ccc S loc ccnncs Cases wcoccaccs 3,5

Jones v. Diamond, 594 F.2d 997 (5th Cir. 1979) .............. 3

Kimble v. Department of Corrections, State of Michigan,

ee ee Pe Ee A BE ered nddu cceuestus vivir vacrssece 5

Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U.S. 538,

yonearing den., 406 US. 911 (1978) 2.2.0... ccccccccccass 4

McClelland v. Facteau, 610 F.2d 693 (10th Cir. 1979) ........ 3

McDonald v. State of Illinois, 557 F.2d 596

TEED igh G biG Raat we eu de Gumely 60s 6 sks cake ota ves s 3

Nettles v. Rundle, 453 F.2d 889 (8rd Cir. 1971) .............. 3

Nickens v. White, 536 F.2d 802 (8th Cir. 1976) .............. 5

O’Grady v. Montpelier, 573 F.2d 747 (2d Cir. 1978) ......... 4,5

Page v. Sharpe, 487 F.2d 567 (1st Cir. 1973) ................ 3

Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, rehearing den.,

RTT OI 60 oe ie cal ee 4

-jv-

Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) .......... cece eee eeeeees 2

Pitts v. Griffin, 518 F.2d 72 (8th Cir. 1975) .........-..000e: 5

Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555, 566 (1978) ............ 2

Puckett v. Cox, 456 F.2d 233 (6th Cir. 1972) ............005- 3

Rhodes v. Sigler, 448 F.2d 1237 (8th Cir. 1971) ............. 3,5

Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 375 (1976) ......... sees eeeeeee 2

Sawyer v. Sigler, 445 F.2d 818 (8th Cir. 1971) .............. 5

Secret v. Brierton, 584 F.2d 823 (7th Cir. 1978) ............. 3

Stringer v. Rowe, 616 F.2d 993 (7th Cir. 1980) .............- 2

Tate v. Blackwell, 485 F.2d 193 (5th Cir.),

cork. dew., 412 UB. SRR GGTE) ow ccc canccuccccccgeccsecncn 3

United States ex rel. Wagner v. Ragen, 213 F.2d 294

(7th Cir.), cert. den., 348 U.S. 846, rehearing den.,

348 U.S. 884 (1954), cert. dismissed, Wagner v.

Divotien GES Ud, GTM) 6 vc candccvcdesvccccssadestes’ 5

Urbano v. Calissi, 384 F.2d 909 (3rd Cir. 1967),

oort, dom... BO UB. SEB CIGD co ove wic vvicdanecestaSences 4

Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976) ............ ec eeees 2

Weddle v. Director, Patuxtent Institution,

QE VT.F IR CIEE a vk ghed cvctwwaedeeas fedicdsctscucuneses 4

Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 (1975) ....... 6... ee eee eees 2

NO. 79-1734

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1980

ROBERT PARRATT AND FRANCES LUGENBILL,

Petitioners,

V.

BERT TAYLOR, JR.,

Respondent.

BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF

THE STATE OF NEBRASKA, PETITIONER

AUTHORITY TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

The State of Texas, through Mark White, its Attorney

General, respectfully submits this brief as amicus

curiae under the authority of Rule 36.4, United States

Supreme Court Rules. It is in support of the State of

Nebraska’s petition for writ of certiorari to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

The State of Texas has an interest in urging the Court

to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals for the

Eighth Circuit because this Court’s opinion will have a

significant impact on the nature and scope of prisoner

litigation under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

-2.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The State of Texas adopts and hereby incorporates the

statement of the case as set forth in the State of

Nebraska’s brief.

ARGUMENT OF AMICUS CURIAE

1. Simple negligence may not form the basis of a

judgment under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

In this action, state prison officials were sued for

negligence which resulted in the loss of a prisoner’s

property; that is, a hobby kit valued at $23.57, without

due process of law. Such a claim is not cognizable under

42 U.S.C. §1983.

This Court in Carey v. Piphus, 485 U.S. 247 (1978),

ruled that the due process clause raises no impenetrable

barrier to the taking of a person’s possessions or liberty

or life. Rather, it prohibits the mistaken or unjustified

deprivation of life, liberty or property. Therefore, mere

negligence in dealing with property does not constitute

a due process violation. Arguably, the good faith

immunity approved in Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308

(1975), and Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), is

recognition that something more than ordinary

negligence is required to form the basis of a judgment

under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against state officials. See also,

Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555, 566 (1978); Rizzo v.

Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 375 (1976); Washington v. Davis,

426 U.S. 229 (1976).

Most of the circuit courts have held that simple

negligence may not form the basis of a judgment under

42 U.S.C. §1983. Bonner v. Coughlin, 517 F.2d 1311 (7th

Cir. 1975), modified en bane, 545 F.2d 565 (1976), cert.

den., 435 U.S. 932 (1977)(prisoner’s suit for loss of a trial

transcript); Stringer v. Rowe, 616 F.2d 993 (7th Cir.

1980)(prisoner’s suit for loss of personal property);

Beard v. Mitchell, 604 F.2d 485 (7th Cir. 1978)(suit

-3-

against an FBI agent over the reckless nature of his

investigation); Secret v. Brierton, 584 F.2d 823 (7th Cir.

1978)(prisoner’s suit for deprivation of and damage to

his personal property); McDonald v. State of Illinois, 557

F.2d 596 (7th Cir. 1977)(prisoner’s suit over his

homicide conviction allegedly caused by the negligence

of officials); Jones v. Diamond, 594 F.2d 997 (5th Cir.

1979\(prisoners’ challenge over the conditions of their

confinement); Tate v. Blackwell, 475 F.2d 193 (5th Cir.),

cert. den., 412 U.S. 922 (1973)(inmate’s suit for damages

resulting from personal injuries); McClelland v.

Facteau, 610 F.2d 693 (10th Cir. 1979)(suit concerning

the deprivation of constitutional rights during the

period of arrest and custody); Page v. Sharpe, 487 F.2d

567 (1st Cir. 1973)(prisoner’s suit over medical care

received while in custody); Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d

1028 (2d Cir. 1972), cert. den. sub. nom., Employee-

Officer John v. Johnson, 414 U.S. 1033 (1973)(prisoner’s

suit for injuries and delay in medical treatment); Rhodes

v. Sigler, 448 F.2d 1237 (8th Cir. 1971)(prisoner’s suit for

loss of $2.46 to the prison complex); Nettles v. Rundle,

453 F.2d 889 (8rd Cir. 1971)(per curiam)(prisoner’s suit

for negligence in the diagnosis and treatment of his

medical complaint). Contra, Puckett v. Cox, 456 F.2d 233

(6th Cir. 1972). Reliance by the Court below on Howell v.

Cataldi, 464 F.2d 272 (3rd Cir. 1972), as support for the

position that simple negligence may be the basis for an

action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 was improper. In Howell,

the court specifically refused to reach the negligence

issue. Howell v. Cataldi, supra, at 279, n.11.

The State of Texas as amicus curiae urges the Court to

adopt the reasoning of the majority of the circuit courts

and hold that simple negligence may not form the basis

of a judgment under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

2. Ina property context, a post deprivation state

remedy is all the process that the Fourteenth

Amendnient requires.

Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, rehearing den., 425 U.S.

985 (1976), involving an alleged liberty interest

deprivation, held that a violation of state tort law isn’t

necessarily a deprivation of a constitutional right

cognizable under 42 U.S.C. §1983. In Ingraham v.

Wright, 430 U.S. 697 (1977), this Court ruled that where

state law provided sufficient redress for junior high

students who sought to challenge the _ schools’

disciplinary procedures, the case for finding a due

process violation of the constitution was not compelling.

Similarly, in O’Grady v. Montepelier, 573 F.2d 747 (2d

Cir. 1978), a suit by landowners against city officials for

damage to property, the court ruled that a right to

compensation under state law does not mean that there

has been a deprivation of property in the sense

contemplated by the Fourteenth Amendment. Urbano

v. Calissi, 384 F.2d 909 (3rd Cir. 1967) cert. den., 391

U.S. 925 (1968), a suit by a prisoner over the taking of

some personal property, held that since plaintiff set out

a simple, common law offense for which relief was

available under state law, his claim lacked any

substantiality as a federal civil rights action.

In Weddle v. Director, Patuxent Institution, 405 U.S.

1036 (1972), this Court vacated and remanded the

decisioi. of the Fourth Circuit at 436 F.2d 342 (1970) that

a prisoner’s suit for reimbursement of property worth

$3.52 was not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. §1983 in light

of Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U.S. 538,

rehearing den., 406 U.S. 911 (1972). The instant case is

distinguishable from Lynch because the plaintiff there

had a property interest which could not be redressed in

state court necessitating the protection of the due

process clause through 42 U.S.C. §1983, while the

respondent herein has a state tort claims remedy

available.

Courts have recognized that there is a de minimis

level of imposition on due process interests with which

the constitution is not concerned. Ingraham v. Wright,

-5-

supra; O’Grady v. Montepelier, supra; Johnson v. Glick,

supra; Nickens v. White, 536 F.2d 802 (8th Cir. 1976);

Pitts v. Griffin, 518 F.2d 72 (8th Cir. 1975); Kimble v.

Department of Corrections, State of Michigan, 411 F.2d

990 (6th Cir. 1969); Howard v. Higgins, 379 F.2d 227

(10th Cir. 1967)(per curiam).

The State of Texas urges this Court to rule that

considering the de minimis nature of the property

interest in this case and the fact that a state tort claims

remedy is available to redress the complaint, the

respondent’s constitutional right to due process has not

been violated.

CONCLUSION

It is not the function of the federal courts to run

prisons or to control the ordinary internal management

and disciplining of individual inmates. United States ex

rel. Wagner v. Ragen, 213 F.2d 294 (7th Cir.), cert. den.,

348 U.S. 846, rehearing den., 348 U.S. 884 (1954), cert.

dismissed, Wagner v. Stratton, 350 U.S. 926 (1955);

Sawyer v. Sigler, 445 F.2d 818 (8th Cir. 1971); Rhodes v.

Sigler, 448 F.2d 1287 (8th Cir. 1971); Howard v.

Swenson, 426 F.2d 277 (8th Cir.), cert. den., 400 U.S. 948

(1970).

The State of Texas as amicus curiae urges this Court

to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals for the

Eighth Circuit in light of the above policy, the de

minimis nature of the claimed property interest, the

availability of a state tort claims remedy and the fact

that mere negligence is the basis for the liability.

Respectfully submitted,

MARK WHITE

Attorney General of Texas

JOHN W. FAINTER, JR.

First Assistant

-6-

RICHARD E. GRAY, III

Executive Assistant

PAUL R. GAVIA

Chief, State & County Affairs

a ee J ke Sa

BARBARA C. MARQUARDT

Assistant Attorney General

P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711

(512) 475-3131

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae