Louie v. Rios

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT January 10, 2020
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
CHARLES ANTHONY LOUIE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
No. 19-6041
v. (D.C. No. 5:15-CV-00893-SLP)
(W.D. Okla.)
HECTOR RIOS, Warden, Lawton
Correctional Facility; LAKEYAH
NEWSON, Corrections Officer; FNU
WALKER, LCF Corrections Officer; SGT.
FNU THOMAS-CRUZ, LCF Corrections
Officer; CAPTAIN ROBERT JONES, by
and through Warden Rios; FNU
EYKAMP, Computer Teacher; SHERYL
CLARK, Unit Manager; LIEUTENANT
DEBBIE JOHNS, Grievance Coordinator,
by and through Warden Rios; LT.
CANTWELL, Investigator, by and through
Warden Rios; BILLY GIBSON, ACA
Executive, by and through Warden Rios;
BRITTANY HOLMSTROM, ACA
Executive; MARK KNUTSON, Oklahoma
Department of Corrections Designee;
PRESTON DOEFLINGER, Director and
Secretary of Finance Administration and
Information Technology,
Defendants - Appellees.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously
that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See
Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted
without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under
the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
_________________________________
Before HARTZ, PHILLIPS, and EID, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Plaintiff Charles Anthony Louie, an Oklahoma prisoner proceeding pro se,
appeals from the order of the United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants on his claims under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Lawton Correctional Facility (LCF), a private prison
under contract with the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. Plaintiff testified at his
deposition that he kept in his prison cell a considerable amount of paperwork. He alleges
that Defendants, who have all been employees of LCF, intentionally destroyed his legal
materials and other possessions during an institutional shakedown of his prison cell.
Plaintiff’s complaint asserts claims under federal and state law against Defendants
for deprivation of his property and failure to respond to his prison administrative
grievances. The district court sua sponte dismissed the claims based on Defendants’
alleged mishandling of his administrative grievances for failure to state a claim, and it
granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on the deprivation-of-property claim.
The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims. On
appeal Plaintiff challenges only the district court’s ruling on his due-process claim for
deprivation of his property.
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and
10th Cir. R. 32.1.
2
“We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the
same legal standard [that should be applied] by the district court. Summary judgment is
appropriate if . . . there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving
party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Darr v. Town of Telluride, 495 F.3d
1243, 1250–51 (10th Cir. 2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
As the district court recognized, unauthorized intentional deprivations of
Plaintiff’s property do not violate due process if an adequate postdeprivation remedy is
available under state law. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533–36 (1984). Plaintiff
does not argue that Oklahoma lacks such remedies or that they are inadequate, and they
appear to be available against employees of a private prison. See Okla. Stat. tit. 12,
§ 1571 (2016) (replevin); Steenbergen v. First Fed. Sav. and Loan of Chickasha, 753
P.2d 1330, 1332 (Okla. 1987) (conversion). Instead, he argues without authority (1) that
a federal remedy exists under all circumstances, regardless of the adequacy of a state
remedy, and (2) that due process requires a predeprivation procedure. But both
arguments are contrary to Hudson. See 468 U.S. at 533.
Plaintiff also attacks the factual basis for the district court’s ruling. He appears to
argue that factual disputes preclude summary judgment, that the factual allegations of his
complaint should be accepted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and that he
does not have access to the video footage of the search of his cell. There are, however,
no factual disputes relevant to the disposition of his due-process claim. Given the factual
allegations underlying his claims, all that is relevant is that he has an adequate
postdeprivation remedy in state court.
3
Finally, Plaintiff’s briefs in this court mention a possible theory of liability based
on the Eighth Amendment. But he failed to present that theory to the district court, so we
do not consider the claim. See Tele–Commc’ns, Inc. v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 104
F.3d 1229, 1232 (10th Cir. 1997) (“Generally, an appellate court will not consider an
issue raised for the first time on appeal.”).
We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. We DENY Plaintiff’s motion to
proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and remind him that he remains obligated to pay the
full filing fee.
Entered for the Court
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
4