Potts v. Pope ( 1998 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 95-60702
Summary Calendar
_____________________
GEORGE POTTS, JR.
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
PETE POPE; MIKE ROBICHAUX,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:94-CV-428-Br-R
October 29, 1998
Before KING, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
George Potts, Jr., Mississippi prisoner #A13227, appeals from
the summary judgment granted defendants in his civil rights action.
(Potts’ motions to supplement the record, for appointment of
counsel, and for oral argument are DENIED.)
Potts contends that the defendants inflicted cruel and unusual
punishment by placing him in substandard living conditions
following a riot; and that he was deprived of his personal property
without due process of law. As for the punishment claim, we have
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 CIR. R.
47.5.4.
reviewed the record and the briefs and find no reversible error,
for essentially the reasons relied upon by the district court. See
Potts v. Pope, No. 1:94-CV-428-Br-R (S.D. Miss. Oct. 20, 1995).
Regarding the due process claim, a random unauthorized
deprivation of property does not violate due process if an adequate
post-deprivation remedy exists. Alexander v. Ieyoub, 62 F.3d 709,
712 (5th Cir. 1995). A deprivation pursuant to policy or other
authorization, however, may violate due process despite the
availability of such remedies. Id. at 712-13. On the other hand,
“[t]he necessity for quick action by the state coupled with an
adequate post-deprivation hearing [may] obviate[] the need for a
predeprivation hearing”. Beck v. Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 759, 761 (5th
Cir. 1988). Restated, the availability of post-deprivation
remedies satisfies due process when exigent circumstances exist
that allow a property seizure without a predeprivation hearing.
McQueen v. Vance, No. 95-50486, slip op. at 2-3 (5th Cir. Sep. 20,
1995)(precedential unpublished opinion).
Jail authorities acted legitimately to restore order and
ensure security when they seized prisoners’ personal property to
search for contraband. Under the circumstances, no predeprivation
process was necessary. In addition, Mississippi provides adequate
post-deprivation relief through legal actions in state court.
Nikens v. Melton, 38 F.3d 183, 185-8 (5th Cir. 1994); MISS. CODE ANN.
§ 11-38-1 (Supp. 1998). Because Potts had adequate post-
deprivation remedies, there was no due process violation.
AFFIRMED
- 2 -