OpenJurist

876 F2d 897 Morales v. Federal Correctional Institution

876 F.2d 897

Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

Domingo Martinez MORALES, Plaintiff/Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Safford, Arizona, United
States Marshal Service, Tucson, Arizona,
Defendants/Appellees.

No. 87-2833.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 27, 1989.
Decided June 9, 1989.*

Before BARNES, WALLACE, and SKOPIL, Circuit Judges.

1

MEMORANDUM**

2

Domingo Martinez Morales appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment on his claims that federal prison officials lost items of personal property. He contends that during a period of segregation, items of personal property were taken from his cell and stored in a guard's office. Later, when he was twice transferred to other facilities, some of those items and other possessions were lost. We agree with the district court that Morales did not produce facts to refute the government's submissions that it was not responsible for the loss of property. We affirm.

DISCUSSION

3

Morales' claims for compensation for lost property fall within the provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1346(b) (1982). His claims fail, however, because he did not rebut the government's submission that it did not cause the loss of property. Many of the items Morales claimed were missing were listed on a prison inventory sheet with a notation that they had been mailed at Morales' request to an individual in Los Angeles. There is evidence that those items were in fact mailed. There is no evidence, other that Morales' assertions, that the remaining missing items were ever in the government's possession.

4

Morales also seeks damages for the loss of a gold dental bridgework. The submissions show, however, that the bridgework disappeared after Morales was transferred into state custody. The United States is not liable for the negligent acts of state officials who have contracted to incarcerate federal prisoners. See Logue v. United States, 412 U.S. 521, 526 (1973).

5

Finally, Morales' pleadings, when liberally construed, raise a possible civil rights claim of deliberate indifference to medical needs in violation of the eighth amendment. The district court concluded, however, that Morales failed to state a cause of action. We agree. Morales admits that prison officials attended to his dental needs and that he eventually received "excellent dental treatment." Therefore, no constitutional violation is alleged. See Hunt v. Dental Dep't, 865 F.2d 198, 200 (9th Cir.1989) (delay in providing a prisoner with medical treatment, standing along, does not constitute an eight amendment violation).

6

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for submission on the record and briefs and without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a), Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3