Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1981

Parratt v. Taylor

451 U.S. 527 | 101 S. Ct. 1908 | 68 L. Ed. 2d 420 | 1981 U.S. LEXIS 99 | 49 U.S.L.W. 4509

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, Parratt holds that a random, unauthorized negligent loss of property by a state employee does not violate procedural due process when the State provides an adequate postdeprivation remedy for compensation.

Background

Taylor, a Nebraska prison inmate, ordered $23.50 in hobby materials through the mail. While he was in segregation and could not receive the materials, prison employees signed for the packages. The packages later disappeared. Prison procedures required delivery to the addressed inmate or notice to that inmate, and did not permit other inmates to sign for packages.

Taylor sued the prison warden and hobby manager under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that their negligence deprived him of property without due process of law. Although Nebraska had a tort-claims process that could compensate persons, including prisoners, for tortious losses caused by the State, Taylor did not use it. The District Court granted Taylor summary judgment, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether § 1983 categorically excludes claims based on a state official's negligence.

Holding

No. Section 1983 does not impose a blanket intent requirement, but a plaintiff must still establish deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Reasoning

The text and history of § 1983 do not limit civil liability to intentional constitutional violations. Unlike the related criminal statute, § 1983 contains no requirement that an official act "willfully." The Court therefore rejected a categorical rule that negligence can never support a § 1983 claim.

Still, § 1983 supplies a remedy only when two elements are present: the defendant acted under color of state law, and that conduct deprived the plaintiff of a federally secured right. The prison officials acted under color of state law, so the decisive question was whether Taylor's loss amounted to a deprivation of property without due process of law.

Issue #2

Whether the negligent, random, and unauthorized loss of an inmate's property violates procedural due process when the State provides an adequate postdeprivation remedy.

Holding

No. When a state employee's random and unauthorized conduct causes a property loss that the State could not practically prevent through predeprivation process, an adequate state postdeprivation remedy satisfies due process.

Reasoning

Taylor had a property interest in the hobby materials, and their loss was a deprivation attributable to persons acting under color of state law. But the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits only deprivations occurring without due process of law; it does not convert every injury caused by a state employee into a constitutional violation.

Predeprivation notice and a hearing are generally important where a deprivation follows an established state procedure, because the State can anticipate the deprivation and provide safeguards before it occurs. But Taylor alleged the opposite: prison employees failed to follow the State's established package-handling procedures. Because this loss was random and unauthorized, Nebraska could not realistically predict when it would happen or furnish a meaningful hearing beforehand.

In such circumstances, due process may be satisfied by a meaningful opportunity after the loss to determine responsibility and obtain compensation. Nebraska's tort-claims procedure allowed prisoners to pursue payment from the State for tortious property losses and could have fully compensated Taylor for his $23.50 loss.

The fact that Nebraska's remedy did not provide every feature or form of relief potentially available under § 1983—such as a suit against individual employees, punitive damages, or a jury trial—did not make it constitutionally inadequate. Due process required an adequate means of redress, not a remedy identical to a federal civil-rights action.

Treating every negligent injury caused by a state official as a Fourteenth Amendment violation would transform the Due Process Clause into a general federal tort law. The Court declined to constitutionalize ordinary state-law negligence claims where the State supplied an adequate remedy.

Concurrences

Justice Stewart

Reasoning

Justice Stewart doubted that a negligent loss of property is a constitutional "deprivation" at all. In his view, treating the loss of Taylor's hobby materials as a Fourteenth Amendment deprivation would improperly trivialize and distort the Constitution, much as treating damage from a state employee's negligent automobile accident as a due process violation would do.

Even assuming the loss qualified as a constitutional deprivation, Justice Stewart agreed that Nebraska satisfied due process by making a reparations remedy available to Taylor. On that understanding, he joined the Court's opinion.

Justice White

Reasoning

Justice White joined the Court's opinion but expressly adopted the reservations Justice Blackmun set out separately. He thus agreed with the judgment while signaling that the Court's rule should not be read broadly beyond the circumstances of a negligent property loss caused by random and unauthorized conduct.

Justice Blackmun

Reasoning

Justice Blackmun stressed the narrowness of the Court's decision. The case involved only property, alleged simple negligence by supervisory personnel, and a record in which negligence had been assumed rather than actually proved. He did not understand the decision to govern deprivations of life or liberty.

He also rejected any implication that due process is solely procedural. Some governmental conduct, he explained, may violate fundamental due process norms even if the government supplies extensive procedural protections.

Most importantly, Justice Blackmun did not read the Court to hold that a postdeprivation tort remedy ordinarily cures an intentional taking of property by a state official. Random negligent acts are often impossible to anticipate, making predeprivation process impracticable; intentional official conduct ordinarily can be controlled in advance through state procedures. Where the State can establish such safeguards but fails to do so, a later tort remedy may not satisfy due process.

Justice Powell

Reasoning

Justice Powell concurred only in the result because he would decide the case at an earlier step. In his view, an unintentional but negligent act causing property loss is not a constitutional "deprivation" in the first place. A deprivation ordinarily connotes an intentional act, or at least a deliberate decision not to prevent a loss.

Because negligent conduct does not itself implicate the Due Process Clause, Justice Powell would not inquire whether Nebraska's postdeprivation remedies were adequate. This approach, he argued, would prevent ordinary negligence claims from becoming federal constitutional cases whenever a State does not offer a tort remedy.

Justice Powell also cautioned against reading due process as merely procedural. Although he concluded that negligence violates neither procedural nor substantive due process, he maintained that intentional or malicious abuses of official power can implicate substantive due process even when state compensation is available.

Dissents

Justice Marshall

Reasoning

Justice Marshall agreed that negligence may sometimes support a § 1983 claim and that an adequate state damages remedy can, in principle, satisfy due process after a negligent property loss. He disagreed only with the Court's conclusion that Taylor actually had an adequate remedy available to him.

Taylor was a prisoner with limited access to information about legal rights. He pursued the prison grievance process, yet there was no indication that prison officials informed him of Nebraska's tort-claims procedure. Justice Marshall would require prison officials to tell a prisoner asserting an official-property-loss claim about available state remedies before relying on those remedies to defeat a § 1983 action.

Because the officials did not show that Taylor had been informed of the state remedy—and did not even raise that remedy in the lower courts—Justice Marshall concluded that Nebraska's remedy could not be treated as adequate for Taylor. He would have affirmed the Eighth Circuit's judgment for Taylor.