Kendall D. Wysinger v. Mr. S. Bryson, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia granted defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary judgment in a pro se federal inmate’s action concerning the loss of gold dental crowns while he was housed at USP Lee. The court rejected or dismissed the asserted Bivens, FTCA, and 31 U.S.C. § 3723 claims, concluding that the constitutional claims were not viable, the FTCA claim was barred by the law-enforcement exception and improper defendant designation, and the administrative property claim was not judicially reviewable. The court denied the remaining motions as moot.

Holdings

1. The alleged seizure or loss of an inmate's personal property within prison does not state a Fourth Amendment claim because the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable seizures of property does not apply within the confines of a prison.
2. The alleged mishandling or loss of gold dental crowns did not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation.
3. Wysinger failed to state a due process claim for deprivation of his personal property because negligent loss is not actionable under the Due Process Clause and an adequate post-deprivation remedy was available for any unauthorized intentional deprivation.
4. Wysinger could not pursue damages under Bivens for the alleged loss or mishandling of his personal property by federal prison officials.
5. Any FTCA claim was subject to dismissal because the United States was the only proper defendant and, independently, the FTCA's detention-of-property exception barred the claim.
6. The court lacked jurisdiction to review the BOP's denial of Wysinger's administrative claim for lost property under 31 U.S.C. § 3723.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the alleged seizure or loss of Wysinger's dental crowns stated a viable Fourth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, or due process claim.
2. Whether Wysinger could pursue damages under Bivens for the alleged deprivation of his personal property by federal prison officials.
3. Whether any FTCA claim was barred because the United States was not named as the defendant and because the detention-of-property exception to the FTCA applied.
4. Whether a federal court had jurisdiction to review the BOP's denial of Wysinger's administrative lost-property claim under 31 U.S.C. § 3723.

Disposition

dismissed