Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03087/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03087-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

FlLL.D 

U 'ted States Court of Appealr UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS nt Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT APR 2 0 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

WILLIAM FRANK SCHLICHER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

LEE GIBBENS; MADDEN, Unit Team Leader; 

TINDER, Unit Team Leader; RAYMOND 

ROBERTS; R.L. SMITH; WAYNE SHIPMAN, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No . 92-3087 

(D.C. No. 9 0 -CV-3514 ) 

(D. Kan.) 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, HOLLOWAY, and BARRETT, 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 . 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Plaintiff William F. Schlicher, representing himself, is an 

inmate in the custody of the Secretary of the Kansas Department of 

Corrections. In June 1989, two baseball caps were removed from 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, r es judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-3087 Document: 010110212806 Date Filed: 04/20/1993 Page: 1 
plaintiff's maximum custody cell and destroyed as contraband. 

Plaintiff filed a property claim, which was denied for the reason 

that the caps were not authorized property in maximum custody. 

Plaintiff then unsuccessfully sought relief through the 

administrative grievance process . 

Plaintiff then initiated this action under 42 U.S. C. § 1983, 

seeking damages for the confiscation and destruction of his two 

baseball caps by defendants. The district court granted summary 

judgment in favor of defendants in a memorandum and order entered 

on February 25, 1992. Plaintiff appeals. We exercise 

jurisdiction under 28 U. S . C. § 1291 and affirm. 

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, using the 

same standard as the district court. Osgood v. State Farm Mut. 

Auto. Ins. Co., 848 F.2d 141, 143 (10th Cir. 1988) . Summary 

judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to 

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the 

affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any 

material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment 

as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P . 56(c); see Anderson v. 

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). 

The district court determined that, because an alternative 

state remedy was available to him, plaintiff has no federal cause 

o f action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the destruction of his 

baseball caps. We have considered plaintiff's arguments on appeal 

and have reviewed the record carefully. Plaintiff has failed t o 

demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact exists to be tried . 

There f o re, the district c ourt correctly granted summary judgment 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-3087 Document: 010110212806 Date Filed: 04/20/1993 Page: 2 
t o defendants, and we affirm for substantially the same reasons 

set forth in the district court's thorough memorandum and order, 

entered February 25, 1992, a copy of which is attached. 

Plaintiff also asks this court to impose a sanction against 

defendants for their dilatoriness in filing a responsive brief in 

this court. We find no merit to plaintiff's argument. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Kansas is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Chief Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-3087 Document: 010110212806 Date Filed: 04/20/1993 Page: 3 
Appellate Case: 92-3087 Document: 010110212806 Date Filed: 04/20/1993 Page: 4 
AO 72A 

en t::RED ON lhl; IJl,A,,__ • 

OAle )_ / :2 5/9 J.. 

FILED 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRlr.: Gr K; :!s~s 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 

FEa z~ iO oG AH •92 

RALP:-i :. ~ :L~ACH. 

WILLIAM FRANK SCHLICHER, 

v. 

LEE GIBBENS, et al., 

) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

_____________________ Defendants. ) ) 

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 

CLUK 

BY l..'. .-:llry1l:,·.,, ,D::PUTY 

AT iGPHA,KS. 

CASE NO. 90-3514-S 

This matter is before the court on a prose civil rights 

complaint filed pursuant to 42 u.s.c. § 1983. Plaintiff, an inmate 

in the custody of the Secretary of the Kansas Department of 

corrections, contends the named defendants in this matter, 

corrections officials at the Lansing Correctional Facility, Lansing, 

Kansas, conspired to deprive him of due process, stole personal 

property from his cell, and violated his rights secured by the 

First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. 

The incidents leading to this action are uncomplicated. 

In June 1989, two baseball caps were removed from plaintiff's cell 

and destroyed as contraband. Plaintiff filed a property claim, 

which was denied with an explanation that the caps were not within 

property authorized in maximum custody. Plaintiff then 

unsuccessfully pursued relief through the administrative grievance 

process. 

In this action, plaintiff alleges that rules were changed 

after the confiscation of his caps, that he was never issued a 

Appellate Case: 92-3087 Document: 010110212806 Date Filed: 04/20/1993 Page: 5 
AO 72A t r""I - .. o,o,.,\ 

disciplinary report regarding the alleged contraband, and that the 

defendants conspired to seize and destroy the caps in violation of 

official rules. Plaintiff seeks damages of $1,000.00 from each 

defendant, a contempt citation against each, and other relief. 

Having examined the record, the court finds plaintiff has 

no federal claim actionable under § 1983. This statute, which 

provides a remedy for violation of the Constitution and federal 

statutory rights, does not supply a cause of action where an 

alternative state remedy provides due process. See Hudson v. 

Palmer, 468 u.s. 517 (1984) (intentional taking of property does not 

implicate due process clause where an adequate state postdeprivation remedy available); Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 

(1981) (existence of state tort claims process provided due process; 

inmate could not present claim against warden under§ 1983). Here, 

plaintiff clearly had an alternative state remedy: he presented both 

a property claim and an administrative grievance. The fact that 

plaintiff did not receive relief through these avenues does not 

entitle him to present his claim under§ 1983. 

The court further finds no basis for granting plaintiff 

relief under the First or Eighth Amendments. It is clear from the 

record that the institution's general orders at the time of the 

seizure of plaintiff's caps did not require officials to issue a 

receipt for contraband (Martinez report, Ex. 2) , nor did the 

applicable Kansas Department of Corrections Internal Management 

Policy and Procedure specifically authorize baseball caps as 

personal property (Martinez report, Ex. 10). Finally, the 

forfeiture in question is authorized by Kansas Administrative 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-3087 Document: 010110212806 Date Filed: 04/20/1993 Page: 6 
DES:RL 

AO 72A 

(_ ( 

Regulation 44-5-111. Nothing in these circumstances supports 

plaintiff's claims of violations of his constitutional rights. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED this action is hereby dismissed 

and all relief denied. 

The clerk of the court is directed to transmit copies of 

this order to plaintiff and to counsel for defendants. 

DATED: 

Kansas. 

This d 5 day of February, 1992 at Topeka, 

3 

DALEE. SAFFELS 

United States Di 

Appellate Case: 92-3087 Document: 010110212806 Date Filed: 04/20/1993 Page: 7 
Appellate Case: 92-3087 Document: 010110212806 Date Filed: 04/20/1993 Page: 8