Khalid Rashid Shabazz v. R. Perry, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed Khalid Rashid Shabazz’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim. The court held that the alleged loss of personal property did not support a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim because Virginia provides adequate post-deprivation remedies, and that inmates have no constitutional right to a favorable grievance response.

Holdings

1. An unauthorized deprivation of an inmate's property by a state employee does not violate procedural due process when the state provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. Because the Virginia Tort Claims Act and Virginia tort law provide adequate remedies, Shabazz had no viable due process claim based on the loss of his shirt and wave cap.
2. Inmates have no federally protected interest in having prison grievances resolved to their satisfaction. The defendants' alleged failure to respond adequately to, or resolve, Shabazz's complaints and grievances therefore did not violate a constitutionally protected right.
3. The complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and was subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).

Questions Presented

1. Whether the alleged negligent or unauthorized loss of Shabazz's personal property, followed by the availability of remedies under Virginia law, stated a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2. Whether prison officials' failure to resolve Shabazz's complaints and grievances concerning the promised reimbursement stated a constitutionally protected due process claim.
3. Whether the complaint stated a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 sufficient to survive screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).

Disposition

dismissed