Cavender v. Uphoff, 10th Cir. (1997)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsCavender v. Uphoff, 10th Cir. (1997)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsF I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
BRIAN CAVENDER; RICHARD
DOWDELL; DONALD GEE;
DAVID R. HARTLEY; PATRICK
JOHN MCATEE; DERRICK R.
PARKHURST,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
SEP 26 1997
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
No. 96-8067
(D.C. No. 95-CV-81)
(D. Wyo.)
and
PAUL D. HOLMES; TERRY
HUGHES; JERRY SCHMIDT,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JUDY UPHOFF; DUANE
SHILLINGER; STAN JAMES;
RONALD G. RUETTGERS; D.K.
PIPPIN, in their individual capacities,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiffs filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that
defendants deprived them of their property without due process, thus violating
their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The magistrate judge
recommended dismissal of the action for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies. The district court adopted the magistrate judges report and
recommendation insofar as it recommended dismissal of two of the plaintiffs
claims for failure to exhaust their administrative remedies. The district court
went on, however, to dismiss the complaint, as to all plaintiffs, as frivolous under
28 U.S.C. 1915(d), concluding that plaintiffs had failed to state a cause of
action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. 1
Deprivation of a prisoners property by a state employee does not violate
procedural due process rights if an adequate state post-deprivation remedy exists.
The provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1915(d) have been recodified at 28
U.S.C. 1915(e).
-2-
See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 531-33 (1984). The district court cited
Wyo. Stat. Ann. 1-39-112, 1-39-103(a)(iii), and 7-2-101(a)(iv)(H), in finding
that the State of Wyoming has waived sovereign immunity for torts resulting from
the actions of detention officers acting within the scope of their official duties,
and, therefore, an adequate state remedy exists to address plaintiffs complaints.
On appeal, plaintiffs take issue with the adequacy and availability to them of the
state law tort remedy. In their brief on appeal, defendants maintain that this court
does not need to determine hypothetically the availability of relief under state tort
law, because the Wyoming Department of Corrections Inmate Grievance
Procedure afforded plaintiffs an adequate postdeprivation remedy.
We review the district courts dismissal under 1915(d) for an abuse of
discretion. See Schlicher v. Thomas, 111 F.3d 777, 779 (10th Cir. 1997). Further,
we can affirm on any basis supported by the record. See United States v.
Sandoval, 29 F.3d 537, 542 n.6 (10th Cir. 1994). A states action of depriving a
prisoner of property without due process is not complete until and unless it
provides or refuses to provide a suitable postdeprivation remedy. Hudson, 468
U.S. at 533. Thus, plaintiffs were required to plead and prove the absence of an
adequate postdeprivation remedy in order to state a claim for violation of their
rights to due process in their 1983 action.
-3-
Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that they should not be required to
exhaust administrative remedies available to them because the inmate grievance
procedure does not provide for monetary relief. Although not raised in the
context of whether the prison grievance procedure provides an adequate
postdeprivation remedy for purposes of Fourteenth Amendment due process
rights, we will liberally construe this allegation as going to the inadequacy of the
grievance procedure as a remedy to address the deprivation of property. The
allegation that the grievance procedure does not provide for monetary relief is
belied, however, by subsequent statements in the complaint where plaintiffs set
forth facts indicating that certain of the plaintiffs were offered monetary
compensation through the grievance procedure. In fact, the State of Wyoming
Department of Corrections Administrative Regulations provide that the inmate
grievance procedure will provide for, among other remedies, restoration of or
restitution for personal property. See App. to Appellees Br., Ex. B,
Administrative Reg. at 6. The State of Wyoming Department of Corrections
inmate grievance procedure received certification as in compliance with the Civil
Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. 1997e, see App. to
Appellees Br. at Ex. B, and it provides an adequate postdeprivation remedy for
plaintiffs complaints. See Hudson, 468 U.S. at 536 n.15; Al-Raid v. Ingle, 69
-4-
F.3d 28, 32 (5th Cir. 1995); Phelps v. Anderson & Langford, 700 F.2d 147, 149
(4th Cir. 1983).
Because plaintiffs do not plead and show the inadequacy or unavailability
of postdeprivation remedies, we agree with the district courts conclusion that
plaintiffs have not stated a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. We AFFIRM
the district courts dismissal under 1915(d) as frivolous. 2 The applications to
proceed in forma pauperis are granted, and all other outstanding motions are
denied. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
This appeal is frivolous or fails to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.
1915(e)(2)(B)(i) or (ii) for purposes of counting prior occasions under 28
U.S.C. 1915(g).
2
-5-
