Lyons v. Dart

In section 1983 action by plaintiffs (prisoner and non-prisoner who sent prisoner at least 10 books), alleging that defendant-Sheriff violated their First Amendment rights by enforcing policy that limited inmates to three pieces of reading materials in their cells and resulted in confiscation of 30 “excess” books from plaintiff-prisoner’s cell, Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing non-prisoner’s action, after finding that said individual lacked standing to pursue instant action since jail did not interfere with her ability to communicate with plaintiff-prisoner. Dist. Ct. erred, though, in dismissing instant action with respect to plaintiff-prisoner, since, although under Parratt, 451 U.S. 527, individuals who complain about loss/destruction of property have cause of action to recover for said loss only in state court and not via section 1983 action, Parratt does not apply to instant lawsuit that challenged jail’s confiscation policy. As such, remand was required to allow plaintiff-prisoner to identify precise jail policy at issue in lawsuit and to determine whether policy is valid.