Filed Date: July 11, 1984
Clearinghouse coding complete
We have not been able to obtain any of the filings or opinions issued in this case. However, another case, Garvey v. Allen, No. CV486-230, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1148 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 14, 1987) (Judge Berry Edenfield), alleging non-compliance with a court order in Lewis, has revealed some details. In Garvey, the plaintiff, a prisoner at the Coastal Correction Institution, filed a law suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia alleging that he had been unconstitutionally deprived of his property rights under the Fourteenth Amendment when prison officials seized a chessboard from his cell during a search. Specifically, he claimed that his constitutional rights had been violated by the defendants' non-compliance with the contraband seizure policy provided in the Lewis v. Evans consent order.
Based on this claim, it can be understood that Lewis brought suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia against prison officials alleging, at a minimum, deficiencies in policies and procedures regarding searches of cells and seizure of contraband. That suit resulted in the district court entering a consent decree in October 1985. Lewis v. Evans, CV484-251 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 22, 1985). That consent decree provided that when property is deemed "nuisance contraband," inmates are allowed to present evidence of ownership and misclassification as contraband within seven days of its confiscation. If the inmate could establish both, the item must be returned.
In the subsequent Garvey litigation interpreting this decree, the district court rejected plaintiff Garvey's argument and granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. Garvey v. Allen, No. CV486-230, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1148 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 14, 1987) (Judge Berry Edenfield). First, the court held that the consent order in Lewis v. Evans provided adequate post-deprivation remedies to prevent an unconstitutional deprivation of property without due process. Moreover, under that consent order, the plaintiff was free to bring evidence during the first seven days after confiscation, but deliberately refused to avail himself of that option. The consent order, the court said, did not guarantee a specific forum nor did it place an affirmative duty on the prison to schedule a hearing. Finally, the court held that violations of consent decrees should be redressed through contempt proceedings, and not section 1983 actions, as such violations are often not violations of constitutional rights.
Neither the Lewis nor the Garvey dockets are available on PACER, and therefore our information ends with the January 14, 1987 court opinion.
Summary Authors
Sherrie Waldrup (3/6/2006)
Edenfield, Berry Avant (Georgia)
Edenfield, Berry Avant (Georgia)
Last updated Feb. 14, 2024, 3:02 a.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: Georgia
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 11, 1984
Case Ongoing: No reason to think so
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Prisoner alleging confiscation of his chessboard by a prison guard
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Unknown
Filed Pro Se: Unknown
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Coastal Correctional Institution, State
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Unreasonable search and seizure
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration: 1985 - 0
Issues
General:
Type of Facility: