cell before his work shift. A few items remained in his old cell: a pair of Adidas shoes, some electronic equipment, and some food. Melvin hid the property and asked the guard to deadlock the cell. The guard, Richard, looked in the cell and determined it was empty. He did not lock the cell.
When Melvin returned from work, he noticed that his property was missing. There are conflicting claims as to whether Richard knowingly allowed the other prisoners to take Melvin’s property, but it is known that the cell was not locked. Melvin argued that Richard was a bailee and Richard was responsible for the lost property. Clearly the relationship between a prisoner and a prison guard is unique and different from more standard relationships, such as the relationship between a boarder and an innkeeper. However, whether this difference was strong enough to diminish any duty owed by Richard to Melvin was the question the court confronted.
Although it is often difficult for prisoners to bring litigation, several cases across the country illustrate that the loss of their personal property is not uncommon. In Sellers v. United States, a frequently cited case, the prison restricted the amount of personal items inmates could keep in their cells. In accordance with the restriction, the prison authorities took from Sellers an oil painting of his wife, 41 law books, an almanac, and other personal items. Sellers’s items were subsequently lost. The Seventh Circuit held that once a prisoner establishes a bailment relationship and loss of property, the government is liable for conversion.

1. Do you think a bailment relationship existed between Richard and Melvin?
2. Pretend that Melvin was a guest at a hotel. The hotel manager asked Melvin to move to another room. Melvin was able to transfer most of his belongings to the new room, but he then had to rush to an appointment. He requested that the front-desk attendant lock his old room. Do you think this scenario is easier to resolve? Why or why not?