Phillips v. Brown ( 2020 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION MARVIN GENE PHILLIPS PLAINTIFF v. Civil No. 2:20-CV-02059 DEPUTY BROWN and DEFENDANTS OFFICER SAMANTHA GOODWIN ORDER Plaintiff proceeds in this matter pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case is before the Court for preservice screening under the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court has the obligation to screen any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed his Complaint on April 17, 2020. He is currently incarcerated in the Crawford County Detention Center (“CCDC”). (ECF No. 1 at 3). Plaintiff alleges that when he was released from CCDC on December 13, 2019, Defendants were not able to return his personal property because they had lost the items. (Id. at 2). He further alleges that another Deputy kept trying to give him someone else’s phone. (Id. at 5). Plaintiff proceeds against Defendants in both their official and personal capacities. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $1,716.00. (Id. at 5). II. LEGAL STANDARD Under the PLRA, the Court is obligated to screen the case prior to service of process being issued. The Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that: (1) are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or, (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). A claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it does not allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “In evaluating whether a pro se plaintiff has asserted sufficient facts to state a claim, we hold ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded ... to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Jackson v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537, 541 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). Even a pro se Plaintiff must allege specific facts sufficient to support a claim. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985). III. ANALYSIS Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim, as he has adequate post-deprivation remedies for his lost property. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (intentional deprivation of property does not violate due process when meaningful post-deprivation remedy is available); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 1994) (negligent or intentional deprivation of prisoner’s property fails to state claim under § 1983 if state has adequate post-deprivation remedy); Elliot v. Hurst, 307 Ark. 134, 817 S.W.2d 877, 880 (1991) (cause of action for conversion lies where distinct act of dominion is exerted over property in denial of owner’s right). Accordingly, because Plaintiff may seek redress in Arkansas state courts for his claim of lost property, he has no claim pursuant to § 1983 in this regard. IV. CONCLUSION For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Further, this case is counted as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and the Clerk is directed to enter a Section 1915(g) strike flag on this case. IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of April 2020. /s/P. K. Holmes, III P. K. HOLMES, III U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE