Russell Thomas Palmer, Jr. v. Ted S. Hudson, Officer

Fourth Circuit

Russell Thomas Palmer, Jr. v. Ted S. Hudson, Officer

744 F.2d 22, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 18400

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 20, 1984

Docket81-6967

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 744 F.2d 22 (Russell Thomas Palmer, Jr. v. Ted S. Hudson, Officer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Russell Thomas Palmer, Jr. v. Ted S. Hudson, Officer, 744 F.2d 22, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 18400 (4th Cir. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In the previous appeal, we affirmed the ruling of the district court that the intentional destruction of a prisoner’s property is not a violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when the prisoner has an adequate remedy under state law, relying upon Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981). But we also ruled that plaintiff had a limited right to privacy in his prison cell entitling him to the protection of the Fourth Amendment, and we remanded the case for further proceedings under the latter holding. 697 F.2d 1220.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari, and by an opinion filed July 3, 1984, — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393, it agreed with our interpretation of Parratt v. Taylor, but it held that plaintiff, a prisoner, had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his prison cell entitling him to the protection of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches. It reversed our contrary holding and remanded the case for further proceedings.

In obedience to the mandate of the Supreme Court, we now affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

In the previous appeal, we affirmed the ruling of the district court that the intentional destruction of a prisoner’s property is not a violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when the prisoner has an adequate remedy under state law, relying upon Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981). But we also ruled that plaintiff had a limited right to privacy in his prison cell entitling him to the protection of the Fourth Amendment, and we remanded the case for further proceedings under the latter holding. 697 F.2d 1220.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari, and by an opinion filed July 3, 1984, — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393, it agreed with our interpretation of Parratt v. Taylor, but it held that plaintiff, a prisoner, had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his prison cell entitling him to the protection of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches. It reversed our contrary holding and remanded the case for further proceedings.

In obedience to the mandate of the Supreme Court, we now affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

744 F.2d 22, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 18400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-thomas-palmer-jr-v-ted-s-hudson-officer-ca4-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack