(DOWNLOAD) "Woods v. Davis" by United States Court Of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Woods v. Davis
- Author : United States Court Of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit
- Release Date : January 18, 1983
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 50 KB
Description
Plaintiff, a Tennessee State prisoner, requests the Court to appoint counsel in his appeal from a district court judgment dismissing his civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Seeking monetary and injunctive relief, the plaintiff alleged that the prison officials wrongfuly disposed of approximately $271 worth of his personal property which was kept in the prisons property control room. More specifically, the plaintiff stated that when he arrived at the prison on April 20, 1981, he was told that some of his property had to be sent home as it exceeded the amount allowed to be held for an inmate in the prisons property control room. On July 4, 1981, more of his personal belongings were placed in the property control room. On June 18, 1981, the plaintiffs mother came to the prison and took what was purportedly all of the plaintiffs belongings home with her. Officer Luttrell allegedly informed the plaintiff and his mother that all of plaintiffs belongings were in the property control room and could be taken by plaintiffs mother. Upon arriving home, the plaintiffs mother discovered, however, that she was not given plaintiffs belongings which were placed in the property control room on April 20, 1981. On August 14, 1981, the plaintiff was informed by Corrections Officer Gunter that the plaintiffs missing property was donated to an organization on August 3, 1981 which was about two weeks after plaintiffs mother had visited the prison to collect plaintiffs belongings. The Tennessee Board of Claims disallowed the plaintiffs claim for the return of his belongings on January 21, 1982 and stated that the prison officials were not negligent or liable for the loss of plaintiffs property as they simply followed established procedures for the disposal of excess property that is held in the property control room for more than thirty days. In response to the Boards decision, the plaintiff explained that he did not sign a property release form because his parents could not visit the prison within thirty days to pick up his belongings. He also repeated that his property was not alledegly given away until two weeks after plaintiffs mother arrived at the prison to pick up his property. The district court summarily dismissed the plaintiffs complaint stating that this was plaintiffs second attempt to seek redress on this claim, that the deprivation of property was not completed without due process, and that the plaintiff still possesses an adequate remedy to seek redress for his lost property.