# Amicus Brief — Parratt v. Taylor

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385006_2325%3A15

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Amicus Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1981
- **Citation:** 451 U.S. 527

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385006_2325%3A15. Public record. Not legal advice.