Pearson v. William ( 2022 )

Case: 20-40650 Document: 00516153682 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/04/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 4, 2022
No. 20-40650 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Larry Pearson,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Kimberly William; JJ Pitts; Jerry Haggard,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 9:17-CV-81
Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Larry Pearson, Texas prisoner # 1249095, appeals the district court’s
dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit, which raised allegations concerning a
failure to protect him and deprivation of property, for failure to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). To
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-40650 Document: 00516153682 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/04/2022
No. 20-40650
raise a viable § 1983 claim, one must show that a state actor infringed his
constitutional rights. Doe v. Rains County Indep. Sch. Dist., 66 F.3d 1402,
1406 (5th Cir. 1995). We review the dismissal under the de novo standard.
Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1998).
To raise a viable failure to protect claim, a prisoner must show that
prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his safety needs. Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Pearson shows no error in connection
with the district court’s determination that he had not met this standard but
instead insists that he is entitled to relief because prison protocols were
ignored. He is wrong. See Stanley v. Foster, 464 F.3d 565, 569 (5th Cir. 2006);
Doe, 66 F.3d at 1406. We decline to consider the facts and arguments he
presents in support of this claim that were not raised in the district court. See
Theriot v. Parish of Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477, 491 n.26 (5th Cir. 1999); Leverette
v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 341-42 (5th Cir. 1999).
“Under the Parratt/Hudson 1 doctrine, a deprivation of a
constitutionally protected property interest caused by a state employee’s
random, unauthorized conduct does not give rise to a § 1983 procedural due
process claim, unless the State fails to provide an adequate postdeprivation
remedy.” Allen v. Thomas, 388 F.3d 147, 149 (5th Cir. 2004) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). The Texas tort of conversion
provides an adequate state post-deprivation remedy to prisoners who claim
due process violations based on deprivation of their property. Murphy v.
Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 543-44 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court’s rejection of
Pearson’s deprivation of property claim was grounded in these principles and
was thus sound, and Pearson shows no error in connection with it. His
1
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984); Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981),
overruled in part by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330–31 (1986).
2
Case: 20-40650 Document: 00516153682 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/04/2022
No. 20-40650
argument that the deprivation was the result of the defendants ignoring
prison policy fails to state a § 1983 claim upon which relief can be granted.
Stanley, 464 F.3d at 569; Doe, 66 F.3d at 1406. His argument that he raised a
claim of stolen property and not deprivation of property shows no error
because he cites nothing to show a material difference between the two
phrases. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3