Harris v. Forsyth, 83-3394
| Decision Date | 22 May 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-3394,83-3394 |
| Citation | 735 F.2d 1235 |
| Parties | Willie HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. T.J. FORSYTH and F. Christensen, Defendants-Appellees. Non-Argument Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Before HATCHETT, ANDERSON and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
Willie Harris appeals from a summary judgment finding that his constitutional rights were not violated by the confiscation of his money by prison officials. Harris, an inmate of the Union Correctional Institution (UCI), instituted this Sec. 1983 action claiming an unconstitutional deprivation of property occurred when the $31.00 he had on his person was seized during a search on April 27, 1982. According to Harris, he was transferred from the Cross City Correctional Institution, where prisoners were allowed to have currency, to UCI and that prison officials at UCI never informed him or provided him with any kind of notice that money was considered contraband at the prison and would be confiscated and placed in the prisoner's welfare fund. The district court found that neither the confiscation of money nor the alleged unfairness of Harris being held responsible for rules with which he was not familiar stated a claim upon which relief could be granted.
The law is well established that a state has "a compelling interest in maintaining security and order in its prisons and, to the extent that it furthers this interest in reasonable and non-arbitrary ways, property claims by inmates must give way." Sullivan v. Ford, 609 F.2d 197 (5th Cir.1980). In Sullivan, another prison inmate complained about the confiscation of over $2,000 found among his possessions. The court in that case examined Florida statute and prison regulations dealing with contraband and found them to be reasonable restrictions on the property rights of inmates. We note that the statute and regulations relied upon to seize the money in this case are virtually identical to those approved of in Sullivan. Compare Fla.Stat. Sec. 945.215(1)(c) (1981) with Fla.Stat. Sec. 402.18(3) (1977) and Rule 33-3.06 FAC (1982) with Rule 33-3.06. The statute in question makes it clear that any contraband found on or in the possession of an inmate will be confiscated and deposited in the inmate welfare fund. Rule 33-3.06(5)(b) of the Florida Administrative Code states that in institutions which rely on canteen coupons instead of cash, any and all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Anstey v. Davis
...law is well established that a state has `a compelling interest in maintaining security and order in its prisons[.]'" Harris v. Forsyth, 735 F.2d 1235 (11th Cir.1984) (citation omitted). The possession of computers by inmates compromises security and order by providing the capability to sto......
-
Caldwell v. Miller
...in security and order in a reasonable and non-arbitrary manner, property claims of inmates must give way. See, e.g., Harris v. Forsyth, 735 F.2d 1235 (11th Cir.1984) (state statutory restrictions on contraband requiring forfeiture of money found in inmate's possession to prison welfare fund......
-
Lawson v. Singletary
...Cir.1995). It is well established that states have a compelling interest in security and order within their prisons. Harris v. Forsyth, 735 F.2d 1235 (11th Cir.1984); Sullivan v. Ford, 609 F.2d 197 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 969, 100 S.Ct. 2950, 64 L.Ed.2d 829 (1980). In the case at......
-
Scott v. Conley
...in security and order in a reasonable and non-arbitrary manner, property claims of inmates must give way.” Id. (citing Harris v. Forsyth, 735 F.2d 1235 (11th Cir.1984)) Courts have routinely refused to find unconstitutional government actions that deprive prisoners of property so long as an......