Orozco v. Dart

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-Sheriff’s and County’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-inmate’s section 1983 action, alleging that defendants violated his due process rights by enacting policy that limited inmates to only three books per cell and then conducting search and seizing over 30 books from his cell and then subsequently destroying said books. Instant three-book limit is constitutional, and record showed that three-book policy was contained in prisoner handbook to which plaintiff had received copy. Moreover, plaintiff received oral notice that his and other cells would be searched for excess books some days prior to actual search, and defendants provided inmates options for disposing excess books by allowing them to mail them to others, allowing third-parties to come to jail to pick up excess books on behalf of inmates, and by allowing inmates to donate excess books to other inmates. While plaintiff established that he had protected property right in his excess books, defendants nevertheless provided plaintiff with adequate due process by giving him advance notice of policy, in-person notice of future search and availability of grievance procedure. Fact that plaintiff did not avail himself of any option to comply with policy or did not file grievance did not require different result. Also, plaintiff could not establish any Monell liability, where he provided evidence of only one possible constitutional violation, which failed to establish required pattern of similar constitutional violations that would have given defendant-County notice that its three-book policy violated Constitution.