Dowdy v. Stevenson

• Court: District Court, D. Maryland
• Decided: March 28, 2023
• Docket: 1:23-cv-00323
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

MARKUS DOWDY,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No.: DKC-23-323

BEN STEVENSON, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Self-represented plaintiff Markus Dowdy, who was previously incarcerated at Montgomery County Correctional Facility (“MCCF”), has requested permission to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).1 Because Mr. Dowdy appears indigent, his request to proceed without pre-payment of the filing fee will be granted. However, the complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Because Mr. Dowdy proceeds in forma pauperis, the court retains an independent duty to review the claims for sufficiency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and 1915A. Accordingly, the court must dismiss any claim that (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such suit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A. The court is also mindful of its obligation to accord liberal construction to the pleadings of self-represented litigants such as Mr. Dowdy. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Nonetheless, liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the

1 Mr. Dowdy was incarcerated when he filed the complaint, but he has since been released. See ECF No. 4 (noting Mr. Dowdy’s change of address to an apartment in Silver Spring, Maryland). pleading to allege facts that set forth a cognizable claim. See Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 390-91 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985) (stating a district court may not “conjure up questions never squarely presented”). In making this determination, “[t]he district court need not look beyond the complaint’s allegations.

. . . It must hold the pro se complaint to less stringent standards than pleadings drafted by attorneys and must read the complaint liberally.” White v. White, 886 F.2d 721, 722-23 (4th Cir. 1989). Mr. Dowdy alleges that on February 13, 2023, while incarcerated at MCCF, he gave Officer Becham seven books that his family had ordered for him. ECF No. 1 at 2. Mr. Dowdy states that Officer Becham left the books in an unsecure sallyport. Id. When Mr. Dowdy inquired about the location of his books, he did not receive an answer. Id. at 3. He then filed a grievance regarding the missing books, to which he did not receive a response. Id. Subsequently, Mr. Dowdy filed the instant civil rights complaint seeking monetary damages and the return of his books. Id. at 5. Mr. Dowdy fails to identify what constitutional provision serves as the basis for his claim

for lost property. To the extent Mr. Dowdy brings a claim under § 1983 for deprivation of property without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, his claim fails. Mr. Dowdy alleges that a corrections officer left his property in an unsecure sallyport, implying it was at risk of being stolen or misplaced. ECF No. 1 at 2-3. However, a negligent deprivation of property is not actionable under § 1983. See Kerr v. S.C. Dept of Corr., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180695, at *2 (D.S.C. Oct. 28, 2016), report and recommendation adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80, (D.S.C. Jan. 3, 2017) (citing Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31 (1986); Menendez v. Keefe Supply Co., 235 Fed. App’x 737, 740 (11th Cir. 2007)); see also Dellis v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 257 F.3d 508, 511 (6th Cir. 2001) (“Plaintiff’s allegation that other inmates stole his property fails to state a claim against the prison officials because the prison’s negligence in allowing the theft is not a ‘taking’ for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.”). To the extent Mr. Dowdy alleges an unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee, his claim would fail as he has access to an adequate post-deprivation remedy.

Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); Tydings v. Dep’t of Corrections, 714 F.2d 11, 12 (4th Cir. 1983) (finding that Virginia law provides for an adequate post-deprivation remedy). The right to seek damages and injunctive relief in Maryland courts in a tort action constitutes an adequate post-deprivation remedy for inmates in Maryland prisons. See Juncker v. Tinney, 549 F. Supp. 574, 579 (D. Md. 1982) (“[T]here is no question that the relief available to plaintiff in state court is adequate.”); see also Hawes v. Foxwell, No. DKC-17-2598, 2018 WL 2389060 at *4 (D. Md. May 25, 2018) (noting that the Maryland Tort Claims Act and the IGO provide adequate post- deprivation remedies), Fuller v. Warden, No. WMN-12-43, 2012 WL 831936 at *2 (D. Md. Mar. 8, 2012). Finally, Mr. Dowdy does not allege that his books were taken due to their content, therefore there is no basis for a First Amendment claim. See ECF No. 1 at 3.

Accordingly, the complaint must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. A separate Order follows.

March 28, 2023 __________/s/______________________ DEBORAH K. CHASANOW United States District Judge