Jackson v. Wilkinson
671 F. App'x 717
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Robert Earl Jackson, an Oklahoma state prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deprivation of a television, MP3 player, and MP3 charger while housed at the privately operated Davis Correctional Facility (DCF).
- At intake a damaged TV was logged and DCF provided a replacement loaner TV that Jackson claims he did not agree to return on transfer.
- During a February 17, 2012 incident in the chow hall, staff used force and Jackson says his MP3 player and charger were lost and staff ignored his requests to retrieve them.
- Upon transfer from DCF Jackson did not receive the replacement TV and never recovered the MP3 player or charger; he pursued internal remedies but alleges the procedures were unfair and denied relief.
- The district court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 as frivolous; Jackson appealed and the Tenth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo, construing his pro se pleadings liberally.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether intentional deprivation of property without predeprivation process violates due process | Jackson: prison employees intentionally deprived him of TV, MP3, charger | DCF: availability of meaningful postdeprivation remedies negates a due-process violation | Court: Dismissed — state postdeprivation remedies (e.g., replevin) suffice under Hudson v. Palmer |
| Whether prison disciplinary/administrative proceedings were constitutionally unfair | Jackson: investigation and hearing were partial and procedurally deficient | DCF: procedures adequate; plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory | Court: Dismissed — conclusory assertions of bias lack requisite specificity to state a claim |
| Whether loss of TV, MP3 player, charger amounted to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment | Jackson: deprivation of these items constituted cruel and unusual punishment | DCF: deprivation of such items does not meet the objective seriousness required by the Eighth Amendment | Court: Dismissed — loss of these nonessential items is not sufficiently serious to implicate Eighth Amendment |
| Whether dismissal under §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) was proper | Jackson: (implicit) complaint states constitutional claims | DCF/District Court: complaint fails to state a claim | Court: Affirmed dismissal after de novo review; complaint did not state a viable § 1983 claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (postdeprivation remedy doctrine bars due-process claim for intentional property deprivation)
- Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (Eighth Amendment standard—minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities)
- Perkins v. Kansas Department of Corrections, 165 F.3d 803 (standard for §1915 dismissal review and Eighth Amendment objective component)
- Tonkovich v. Kansas Board of Regents, 159 F.3d 504 (conclusory allegations of bias insufficient for due-process claim)
- Gillihan v. Shillinger, 872 F.2d 935 (deprivation of nonessential "little luxury" items does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment)
- Curley v. Perry, 246 F.3d 1278 (pro se complaints are construed liberally)
- Clark v. Wilson, 625 F.3d 686 (noting overruling context; referenced regarding prior precedent)