Case ID: f-appx_191/html/0312-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bennie L. COLLINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LUBBOCK POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 05-10814
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 24, 2006.
    Bennie L. Collins, Lubbock, TX, pro se.
    Before GARWOOD, CLEMENT and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Bennie L. Collins, Texas prisoner # 1316764, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit as frivolous and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A. The district court dismissed the complaint on the basis that, pursuant to Parrott v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981), and Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984), a section 1983 claim may not be brought for the random and unauthorized confiscation of property by a state actor if the state provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. However, in light of Davis v. Bayless, 70 F.3d 367, 375 (5th Cir.1995), we are constrained to conclude that the district court erred. Collins’s contention that his money (cash) was confiscated when he was pulled over and arrested set forth, albeit obliquely and inartfully, a Fourth Amendment substantive due process claim rather than a procedural due process claim that would be barred by Parratt/Hudson. See id. See also Augustine v. Doe, 740 F.2d 322, 325-27 (5th Cir.1984).

We express no opinion on the ultimate merits of Collins’ claim or whether there may be some other appropriate basis to dismiss Collins’s suit under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) or 1915A.

VACATED and REMANDED. 
      
       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 R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.