Eller v. Cole ( 2023 )

Case: 23-50018 Document: 00516953659 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/02/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-50018
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ November 2, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Clint Harrison Eller, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
CO Gary W. Cole; Pamela G. Taylor; Lt. FNU Simmons;
Ginger Campos; Michael Alsobrook,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:22-CV-857
______________________________
Before Barksdale, Southwick, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, Clint Harrison Eller, Texas
prisoner # 2159361, challenges the sua sponte dismissal of his complaint,
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Eller asserts he suffered an unconstitutional deprivation of property when
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50018 Document: 00516953659 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/02/2023
No. 23-50018
defendants failed to properly secure his possessions during his
hospitalization.
The dismissal is reviewed de novo, applying the same standard
applicable to dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
(failure to state claim). E.g., Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 733–34 (5th Cir.
1998). A complaint fails to state a claim when it does not contain “sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face”. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted). Pro
se filings are construed liberally. E.g., Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 400 (5th
Cir. 2021).
The Parratt/Hudson doctrine precludes Eller from pursuing his
deprivation of property claim under § 1983. See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S.
541, 541–44 (1981), overruled in part by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330–
31 (1986); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). “Under the
Parratt/Hudson 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) (citation omitted). Eller’s
complaint alleged the deprivation of his property was random and
unauthorized by applicable prison procedure. The Texas tort of conversion
provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy to prisoners claiming due-
process violations based on deprivation of their property. E.g., Murphy v.
Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 543–44 (5th Cir. 1994). Eller also fails to state a claim
under § 1983 that the defendant supervisor is liable under a supervisory-
liability theory. See Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 303–04 (5th Cir. 1987)
(“Under [§] 1983, supervisory officials are not liable for the actions of
subordinates on any theory of vicarious liability.”).
AFFIRMED.
2