Anthony McNeil v. Grim

ALD-127 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 17-3204
___________
ANTHONY MCNEIL,
Appellant
v.
MR. GRIM, Sergeant at SCI Greene;
UNIDENTIFIED WORKER AT SCI GREENE
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 2-17-cv-00578)
District Judge: Honorable Kim R. Gibson
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or
Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
February 15, 2018
Before: MCKEE, VANASKIE and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: August 29, 2018)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
In May 2017, Anthony McNeil, an inmate in a Pennsylvania prison, filed a civil
rights action against a prison sergeant and an unidentified prison worker, related to the
loss of McNeil’s personal property during the time he was temporarily transferred out of
SCI Greene. McNeil claimed that prison employees wrongfully destroyed or lost his
personal property, including deodorant, lotion, “religious documents,” “legal
documents,” transcripts, and other materials. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the
Magistrate Judge screened McNeil’s complaint and recommended that it be dismissed
with leave to file an amended complaint. McNeil then filed an amended complaint. The
Magistrate Judge found the complaint to be completely illegible, and ordered McNeil to
file an amended complaint within fourteen days. McNeil then filed a second amended
complaint.
The Magistrate Judge subsequently filed a report and recommendation,
recommending that the Court dismiss the complaint without further leave to amend. The
Magistrate Judge concluded that McNeil failed to state a claim for relief for either the
negligent or intentional destruction of his personal property. McNeal then filed a third
amended complaint. On September 26, 2017, the District Court, on de novo review of
the record and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), dismissed McNeil’s complaint for
failure to state a claim, and denied further leave to amend. McNeil appeals.
We have jurisdiction over his appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review is
plenary. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). Upon review, we
2
will summarily affirm the District Court’s order because no substantial issue is presented
on appeal. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.
McNeil appears to assert a claim solely regarding the deprivation of property
without due process. We agree with the District Court’s conclusion, in adopting and
approving the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, that McNeil’s claim is barred by
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984), and Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986).
To the extent that McNeil claims that prison officials negligently destroyed or lost his
personal property, he has failed to state a claim under the Due Process Clause. The Due
Process Clause is not implicated by a state official’s negligent act which causes loss of or
damage to property. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986); see Davidson v.
O’Lone, 752 F.2d 817, 826 (3d Cir. 1984). To the extent McNeil claims that prison
officials intentionally destroyed or lost his property, he has failed to state a procedural
due process claim since a meaningful post-deprivation remedy for his loss was available.
See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). McNeil was afforded an adequate
post-deprivation remedy, through Pennsylvania’s inmate grievance procedures. See
Tillman v. Lebanon County Corr. Facility, 221 F.3d 410, 422 (3d Cir. 2000) (prisoner
had adequate post-deprivation remedy through grievance system that allowed prisoners to
complain about "any" matter that is "unjust" and provided for direct appeal to the
warden). Thus, the prison grievance procedures, which the record indicates McNeil
availed himself of, forecloses McNeil’s claim. We additionally note that amendment
3
would be futile, since even if McNeil claimed that the prison grievance procedures were
constitutionally inadequate, Pennsylvania’s state tort law would provide an additional
adequate remedy. See 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 8522(b)(3).1
The Magistrate Judge provided two opportunities for McNeil to amend his
complaint. McNeil filed a total of three amended complaints, which, as the District Court
concluded, all failed to correct the defects. The District Court was correct to deny further
leave to amend.
Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s order.
1
We have also considered McNeil’s remaining arguments and conclude that they are
meritless.
4