James McIntyre v. FNU1 Walsh, FNU Hernandez, and John Doe

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan summarily dismissed James McIntyre’s pro se complaint concerning the alleged unauthorized withdrawal of $45 from his prison account after a facility transfer. The court held that adequate Michigan post-deprivation remedies defeated his Fourteenth Amendment due process claim, that the alleged property deprivation did not state an Eighth Amendment claim, and that his conspiracy allegations were insufficient under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, dismissed them without prejudice, and certified that any appeal would be frivolous and not taken in good faith.

Holdings

1. The complaint failed to state a procedural due process claim because McIntyre did not allege that Michigan's available postdeprivation remedies were inadequate.
2. The alleged wrongful taking of money from McIntyre's prison account did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
3. McIntyre failed to state a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 because he alleged no nonconclusory facts showing that the defendants entered into an agreement to violate his constitutional rights.
4. After dismissing all federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over McIntyre's Michigan-law claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the alleged unauthorized removal of $45 from McIntyre's prison account stated a procedural due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Whether the alleged wrongful taking of money from McIntyre's prison account constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
3. Whether McIntyre adequately pleaded a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985.
4. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over McIntyre's Michigan-law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Disposition

dismissed