United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
H. SLOMSKY, J.
Robert Forgine, a prisoner currently incarcerated at SCI
Fayette, filed this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 based on allegations that his constitutional rights were
violated in connection with the loss of his property and the
mishandling of his related grievance. He seeks to proceed
in forma pauperis. For the following reasons, the
Court will grant Forgione leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and dismiss his Complaint for failure to state
was previously incarcerated at SCI Graterford. As that prison
was closing, inmates and their property were relocated to SCI
Phoenix. Forgione alleges that inmates were not permitted to
pack their own property and that members of a Special
Response Unit took custody of his personal property in
connection with the move. When Forgione arrived at SCI
Phoenix, he did not receive his personal property; it appears
the property was lost. Members of the Special Response Unit
and Major Clark allegedly told Forgione that they would
“make it right, ” but that “never
happened.” (Compl. at 3.) Two weeks after being moved
to SCI Phoenix, Forgione was transferred to SCI Fayette.
Again, he was without his personal property. Forgione alleges
that he filed a grievance about his lost property but he did
not receive a response.
on those allegations, Forgione filed this lawsuit against SCI
Graterford, SCI Phoneix, Major Clark, Mr. Kelly, and Mr.
Segt. Pierce. He seeks damages for his lost property.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Court grants Forgione leave to proceed in forma
pauperis because it appears that he is incapable of
paying the fees to commence this civil action. Accordingly, 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) applies, which requires the
Court to dismiss the Complaint if it fails to state a claim.
Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard applicable
to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), see Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236,
240 (3d Cir. 1999), which requires the Court to determine
whether the complaint contains “sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). Conclusory
allegations do not suffice. Id. As Forgione is
proceeding pro se, the Court construes his
allegations liberally. Higgs v. Att'y Gen., 655
F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011).
state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the
violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of
the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation
was committed by a person acting under color of state
law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
The Court construes the Complaint as raising a due process
claim based on the loss of Forgione's property. However,
negligent or intentional deprivations of property by a state
employee do not give rise to a due process violation if the
state provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy.
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). Forgione
cannot state a due process claim because the prison grievance
system and Pennsylvania law provide him with an adequate
state remedy for the deprivation of his property. See
Spencer v. Bush, 543 Fed.Appx. 209, 213 (3d Cir. 2013)
(“‘[A]n unauthorized intentional deprivation of
property by a state employee does not constitute a violation
of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation
remedy for the loss is available.'” (quoting
Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533); Shakur v. Coelho,
421 Fed.Appx. 132, 135 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam)
(explaining that the Pennsylvania Tort Claims Act provides an
adequate remedy for a willful deprivation of property);
Tillman v. Lebanon Cty. Corr. Facility, 221 F.3d
410, 422 (3d Cir. 2000) (holding that prison grievance system
provides adequate post-deprivation remedy). Furthermore,
Forgione's claims based on the handling of his grievances
fail because “[p]rison inmates do not have a
constitutionally protected right to a grievance
process.” Jackson v. Gordon, 145 Fed.Appx.
774, 777 (3d Cir. 2005) (per curiam); see also Caldwell
v. Beard, 324 Fed.Appx. 186, 189 (3d Cir. 2009) (per
curiam). In sum, the facts alleged by Forgione do not give
rise to a plausible basis for a constitutional claim.
foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss Forgione's
Complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Forgione will not be given leave to
amend because amendment would be futile. An appropriate Order
 However, as Forgione is a prisoner, he
will be obligated to pay the filing fee in installments in
accordance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act.