Stringer v. Thompson
| Citation | 537 F. Supp. 133 |
| Decision Date | 03 March 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 79 C 1743.,79 C 1743. |
| Parties | Auther STRINGER, Plaintiff, v. James R. THOMPSON, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Darryl DePriest, Jenner & Block, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.
Theresa M. McGrew, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Ill., Chicago, Ill., for defendants.
Auther Stringer ("Stringer"), an inmate of Stateville Correctional Center ("Stateville"), sues a number of state and correctional officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") claiming violations of Stringer's Fourth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights.1 Stringer's action arises out of the institution and aftermath of a "lockdown" at Stateville in the early months of 1979. Defendants have moved under Fed.R.Civ.P. ("Rule") 12(b)(6) to dismiss the Complaint's six counts for failure to state a cause of action. For the reasons contained in this memorandum opinion and order, the motion of Governor James Thompson ("Thompson") is granted and all other defendants' motions are denied.
About February 23, 1979 Stateville Warden Lou Brewer ("Brewer") asked permission of Thompson and Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections ("Department") Gayle Franzen ("Franzen") to declare a state of emergency at Stateville. With permission granted a lockdown ensued, followed by a search of all residents and areas of Stateville beginning February 24.
On February 23 Franzen, his Assistant Director Michael Lane ("Lane") and Brewer circulated a memorandum to all Stateville inmates telling them of the lockdown. It also told the inmates where they would be relocated during the lockdown and what property they would be allowed to take with them to the temporary locations.
Before the lockdown Stringer lived in cell 128, Cellhouse C. About March 9 he was temporarily relocated to cell 422, Cellhouse B-East. During the relocation a pair of trousers (an article of clothing listed in the memorandum as an approved item of personal property) and a pair of shoes (not so listed) were seized from Stringer by correctional officers. They have not been returned since.
Stringer remained in B-East for about four days, after which he was returned to cell 128. On his return he discovered a large amount of personal property was missing from his cell, including legal papers belonging to Stringer and other legal papers entrusted to him by other inmates.3 Except for Stringer's typewriter the missing items have not been returned.
Complaint Counts I through IV are grounded on those facts. Counts V and VI arise out of Stringer's placement in investigative segregation shortly after his return to Cellhouse C:
Stringer was first moved to cell 305, Cellhouse E. Then about March 28 he was moved again, to cell 342, Cellhouse B-West. At the same time prison officials placed Stringer under investigative segregation until April 18, when he was returned to Cellhouse C.
Cell 342, Cellhouse B-West, where Stringer was confined while under investigative segregation, had a broken window, subjecting Stringer to a draft. Additionally its walls were smeared with human waste, which Stringer was forced to clean himself. As a result of his placement in cell 342 Stringer suffered a seizure on April 7 (during the confinement), and he had to be taken from the cell to receive medical treatment.
Complaint Count I alleges the March 9 seizure of Stringer's trousers and shoes violated his due process rights. Counts II and III are directed to the taking of Stringer's personal property from his cell while he was housed temporarily in Cellhouse B-East between March 9 and 13 (Count II charges a violation of Stringer's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, while Count III claims a violation of the Due Process Clause). Count IV asserts that seizure of the legal documents regarding Stringer's lawsuits against Department officials infringed his Sixth Amendment right of access to the federal courts.
Count I readily withstands defendants' motion to dismiss. Kimbrough v. O'Neil, 545 F.2d 1059, 1061 (7th Cir. 1976) (en banc) held "a taking with intent (or reckless disregard) of a claimant's property by a State agent violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is actionable under Section 1983...." Kimbrough too was a prisoner, and that status can of course make no difference to the result here. "There is no iron curtain drawn between the Constitution and the prisons of this country." Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2974, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974).
Stringer's allegations bring him within Kimbrough: Stateville officials took his property (the trousers and shoes) and the taking was intentional. Nothing else is required to withstand a motion to dismiss. While defendants may prove reasons for the taking that could establish a valid defense, that possibility cannot support a motion to dismiss. All the Complaint need state is a set of facts upon which Stringer could recover. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-02, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). If defendants could not prove a legally sufficient justification at all for their conduct, Stringer could certainly recover.
Count II is sanctioned by Bonner v. Coughlin, 517 F.2d 1311 (7th Cir. 1975), modified on other grounds, 545 F.2d 565 (7th Cir. 1976) (en banc). Bonner held (517 F.2d at 1317) "a prisoner enjoys the protection of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches, at least to some minimal extent."
It is true that the level of Fourth Amendment protection enjoyed by prisoners does not rise to that possessed by unincarcerated members of society. Ibid. Indeed, the Bonner Court held that a search of a prisoner's cell was not impermissible under the Fourth Amendment simply because the search was unsupported by probable cause, a warrant or the prisoner's consent.4
But Count II's Fourth Amendment claim stands in a position much like Count I's due process claim.5 Defendants rely on Thornton v. Redman, 435 F.Supp. 876, 881 (D.Del. 1977) in arguing that the reasonableness of the shakedown procedures must lead to Count II's dismissal. Again defendants choose to forget the Complaint defines the factual universe for present purposes. It charges a search and seizure of property neither contraband nor otherwise illegal. Seizures are not necessarily reasonable per se under the Fourth Amendment simply because the search was undertaken pursuant to some prison procedure, although Bonner explicitly left that question open. Bonner, 517 F.2d at 1317; cf. Thornton, 435 F.Supp. at 880.
Stringer may not ultimately prevail on the merits of his Fourth Amendment claim. It might only be necessary for defendants to articulate a minimal rational justification for the search of Stringer's cell and the taking of his property, i.e., some justification demonstrating that the search and seizure were not arbitrary. But at this stage a cause of action has been stated.
This opinion need not decide the ultimate standard Stringer must meet to prevail on Fourth Amendment grounds. For purposes of defendants' motion the only "justification" for the search was that it was undertaken pursuant to orders from those authorized to make such decisions: the Governor and the Director. If Bonner is to have any real meaning,6 that "justification" cannot make the search and consequent seizure conclusively valid under the Fourth Amendment.
Defendants failed to observe and enforce Department's Administrative Regulation ("A.R.") 401(II)(A) and (B) in the search and seizure:
Those provisions were breached in the following respects:
Count III poses the question whether A.R. 401 confers an entitlement in due process terms, so that a State's violation of the regulations is cognizable under Section 1983. This Court has answered that question affirmatively as to other A.R.s. Shango v. Jurich, 521 F.Supp. 1196, 1202 (N.D.Ill. 1981); Harris v. McDonald, 532 F.Supp. 36 (N.D.Ill.1982). But it has also recognized that violation of minor procedural rules in the regulations would not implicate due process. See United States ex rel. Houston v. Warden, Stateville Correctional Center, 635 F.2d 656, 658-59 (7th Cir. 1980).
A.R. 401(II)(A) and (B) are hardly minor. Nor is the prisoner's interest to which those regulations speak. It is unnecessary to decide whether the Constitution requires the State to identify what it confiscates from a prisoner's cell during a generalized shakedown.7 Here the State has undertaken to do so and has also promised not to damage, lose or abuse noncontraband seized in the course of such a search. Underlying those undertakings is an accurate perception of the importance our system places upon our private property — prisoners' as well as free men's — vis-a-vis the state.
In sum A.R. 401(II)(A) and (B) sufficiently create an expectation in a property interest so that its violation infringes the Due Process Clause. Count III too withstands defendants' motion to dismiss.
Count IV like Count II is controlled by Bonner, 517 F.2d at 1320:
Bonner also contends that the loss of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Orantes-Hernandez v. Meese
...grounds, 545 F.2d 565 (7th Cir.1976) (en banc), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 932, 98 S.Ct. 1507, 55 L.Ed. 2d 529 (1978); Stringer v. Thomson, 537 F.Supp. 133, 137 (N.D.Ill.1982). 62. Pursuant to the fundamental right of access to courts, detainees have a right of access to writing materials. Boun......
-
Allman v. Coughlin, 82 Civ. 1149 (GLG).
...the rule in Parratt may not be applicable in cases involving intentional torts or gross negligence. See, e.g., Stringer v. Thompson, 537 F.Supp. 133, 136-37 (N.D.Ill.1982); Tarkowski v. Hoogasian, 532 F.Supp. 791, 795 (N.D.Ill.1982); Isaac v. Jones, 529 F.Supp. 175, 180-81 (N.D.Ill.1981). B......
-
Smith v. Thompson, 88 C 4053.
...Governor and Director Lane into the net as defendants (see Crowder v. Lash, 687 F.2d 996, 1005-06 (7th Cir.1982); Stringer v. Thompson, 537 F.Supp. 133, 138-39 (N.D.Ill.1982)). Thus the Complaint must be viewed as "frivolous" as to those defendants even under the Williams-Smith-Bey Because ......
-
Shakespeare in the Law
...Corporation, 812 F.2d 1407 (6th Cir. 1987) (dissent); Shango v. Jurich, 521 F.Su9p. 1196, 1202 (N.D.111. 1981); Stringer v Thompson, 537 F.Supp. 133, 136 (N.D.111. 1982); State v. Neely, 112 N.M. 702,819 P:2d 249(1991). 127 Macbeth V, v., 32-33. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of A......