Resper v. Schurg, 8:13-cv-01278

Background

Plaintiff Wayne Resper sues Lt. Schurg and Sgt. Sires in a Maryland federal case alleging due process violations arising from alleged improper withdrawals from his prison account and a forged withdrawal form tied to an ARP (administrative remedy) process.
Sires allegedly disbursed funds without Resper’s authorization and Schurg allegedly witnessed and allegedly forged a withdrawal form during ARP handling.
Resper sought relief under 42 U.S.C. due process theories, but the court found no constitutional violation given available post-deprivation remedies.
The court evaluated whether the alleged property mishandling or misdirection of funds implicates a protected liberty or property interest and whether exhaustion of administrative remedies was required and satisfied.
Plaintiff’s argument that retaliation tainted the ARP process was deemed conclusory and insufficient to state a claim.
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against Officer Weisenmiller and against Sires and Schurg.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether due process was violated by post-deprivation property loss	Resper asserts improper withdrawal and forged form breached due process	No constitutional violation; post-deprivation remedy adequate	No due process violation; post-deprivation remedy adequate
Whether Resper exhausted administrative remedies as required by PLRA	Exhaustion issues were thwarted by staff misconduct leading to access denial	PLRA exhaustion required; misconduct may be raised as defense	Exhaustion argument is an affirmative defense; evidence of denial may be raised; court treated as satisfied for dismissal analysis
Whether the alleged retaliation was sufficiently pleaded	Retaliation by staff due to prior complaints	Retaliation claim is conclusory and lacking factual support	Retaliation claim dismissed as conclusory
Whether Sires and Schurg are entitled to dismissal/summary judgment	Claims against them survive initial pleading	Argued no constitutional claims; qualified immunity not needed due to no violation	Claims against Sires and Schurg dismissed; summary judgment granted
Whether Weisenmiller is properly a party to the case		Weisenmiller not served; disregard for merits	Dismissal of claims against Weisenmiller affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1981) (post-deprivation due process remedies suffice for property loss)
Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (U.S. 1986) (constitutional due process material; focus on post-deprivation remedies)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (judge not to weigh evidence; genuine issue for trial standard; summary judgment standard)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting; responder must show genuine issue)
Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (U.S. 2002) (exhaustion of administrative remedies required for prison conditions suits)
Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72 (4th Cir. 1994) (prisoners have no constitutional right to an internal grievance procedure; PLRA exhaustion context)
Anderson v. XYZ Correctional Health Services, Inc., 407 F.3d 674 (4th Cir. 2005) (exhaustion as pleading requirement; inmate failure to exhaust is affirmative defense)
Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514 (4th Cir. 2003) (summary judgment standard; affirmative burden on movant to show no genuine issue)
Revene v. Charles County Comm'rs, 882 F.2d 870 (4th Cir. 1989) (due process and procedural safeguards in local government actions)
Culbert v. Young, 834 F.2d 624 (7th Cir. 1987) (regulatory compliance failures do not, absent liberty interest, create due process claim)
Myers v. Kelvenhagen, 97 F.3d 91 (5th Cir. 1996) (internal regulations alone do not create federal due process claims)
Juncker v. Tinney, 549 F. Supp. 574 (D. Md. 1982) (adequate post-deprivation remedy; applicability to property loss)