×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
TN Prisoner's Photos Destroyed; § 1983 Relief May Lie
TN Prisoner's Photos Destroyed; § 1983 Relief May Lie
In 1998, Billy Lattimer, a Tennessee state prisoner, sued the state
Department of Correction (TDOC) and several prison guards in the Chancery
Court for Davidson County after the guards allegedly destroyed his photo
albums without a hearing. The suit alleged several state law claims and a
due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Lattimer didn't seek a
declaration that his rights had been violated via the Tennessee Claims
Commission before filing suit. The trial court dismissed the case and
Lattimer appealed.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville found that,
considering the sentimental value of the photos (which represented
Lattimer's relationship with his family), the guard's destruction of same
was likely malicious, which the court found to be actionable under § 1983.
On that basis the appellate court remanded the case and ordered it held in
abeyance while the state claims commission determined whether it had
jurisdiction over the case. If so, relief under § 1983 would not be
available. If not, the § 1983 claim could proceed in the trial court. See:
Lattimer v. Tennessee Dept. of Correction, Tennessee Court of Appeals,
(unpublished), 2002 WL 598558.
In 1998, Billy Lattimer, a Tennessee state prisoner, sued the state
Department of Correction (TDOC) and several prison guards in the Chancery
Court for Davidson County after the guards allegedly destroyed his photo
albums without a hearing. The suit alleged several state law claims and a
due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Lattimer didn't seek a
declaration that his rights had been violated via the Tennessee Claims
Commission before filing suit. The trial court dismissed the case and
Lattimer appealed.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville found that,
considering the sentimental value of the photos (which represented
Lattimer's relationship with his family), the guard's destruction of same
was likely malicious, which the court found to be actionable under § 1983.
On that basis the appellate court remanded the case and ordered it held in
abeyance while the state claims commission determined whether it had
jurisdiction over the case. If so, relief under § 1983 would not be
available. If not, the § 1983 claim could proceed in the trial court. See:
Lattimer v. Tennessee Dept. of Correction, Tennessee Court of Appeals,
(unpublished), 2002 WL 598558.
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Lattimer v. Tennessee Dept. of Correction
| Year | 2002 |
|---|---|
| Cite | Tennessee Court of Appeals, (unpublished), 2002 WL |
| Level | State Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |