Douglas J. Stickels v. Chief Police , 279 F. App'x 790 ( 2008 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-15861
May 28, 2008
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 07-01805-CV-ODE-1
DOUGLAS J. STICKELS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CHIEF POLICE,
GCPD,
GWINNETT COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT,
(GCPD),
GWINNETT COUNTY, GA,
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
Gwinnett Cty, GA,
JOHN DOES 1,2,3,ETC.,
All defendants in their Individual
and Official Capacities,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(May 28, 2008)
Before BIRCH, DUBINA and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Douglas J. Stickels, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from the
district court’s dismissal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), of his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 federal civil rights action. In his action, he asserted that the Gwinnett
County Police Department violated his constitutional rights by refusing to return a
laptop seized at his house upon his arrest. He filed two civil actions in state court
arising from this incident: (1) one was dismissed for insufficient service of process,
and the appeal was dismissed as untimely; and (2) the other was dismissed “on a
technicality,” and the appeal and petition for certiorari were denied. On appeal
here, Stickels argues all meaningful state remedies were “blocked” when the state
superior court prematurely dismissed one of his claims and the court of appeals
dismissed his case after his brief was a day late. After thorough review, we affirm.
We review de novo a district court’s sua sponte dismissal for frivolity or
failure to state a claim under § 1915A(b)(1). Leal v. Georgia Dep’t of Corr.,
254 F.3d 1276, 1278-79 (11th Cir. 2001). Section 1915A requires the court to
review a complaint filed by a prisoner-plaintiff against a governmental entity or
officer and to dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
2
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not violated when
a state employee intentionally deprives an individual of property, so long as a
meaningful post-deprivation remedy is available. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517,
533 (1984). We have noted that the state of Georgia “provide[s] an adequate
postdeprivation remedy [through a civil cause of action for the wrongful
conversion of property] when a plaintiff claims that the state has retained his
property without due process of law,” Lindsey v. Storey, 936 F.2d 554, 561 (11th
Cir. 1991) (quotation omitted). And the U.S. Supreme Court has said that “the
State certainly accords due process when it terminates a claim for failure to comply
with a reasonable procedural . . . rule,” Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S.
422, 437 (1982) (emphasis omitted). In Georgia, the applicable version of Georgia
Court of Appeals Rule 4(c) deemed a postmark date the filing date only when the
document was sent by certified or registered mail. In addition, the prisoner
mailbox rule applies only to habeas cases and “does not exempt a pro se prisoner
from complying with the statutory requirements to file a timely notice of appeal in
any non-habeas criminal or civil filing.” Riley v. State, 626 S.E.2d 116, 117 (Ga.),
cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 53 (2006).
The district court did not err in dismissing Stickels’ action. Stickels had an
adequate state post-deprivation remedy for the failure of the police to return his
3
property, i.e., a state wrongful conversion claim. See Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533;
Lindsey, 936 F.2d at 561. Moreover, since Georgia courts could reasonably permit
postmarks to serve as filing dates only on certified or registered mail and limit the
prisoner mailbox rule to habeas filings, Stickels’ failure to file a timely appellate
brief in state court did not render his post-deprivation remedy inadequate. See
Logan, 455 U.S. at 437. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
4