Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01182/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01182-0/pdf.json

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

---

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TEN'l'II CIRCUIT 

RUSSELL E. FREEMAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

FILED 

United States Coμrt (?f Appoaln Tenth Circuit 

NOV 18 1991 

ROBERT L, HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 91-1182 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

et al., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

(D.C. No. 90-Z-1479) 

Submitted on Plaintiff-Appellant's brief and the appellate 

record.* 

Russell E. Freeman, prose. 

Gale A. Norton, Attorney General, State of Colorado, Denver, 

Colorado, for Defendants-Appellees. 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, and SEYMOUR and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

EBEL, Circuit Judge. 

Appellant Freeman appeals the district court's sua sponte 

dismissal of his complaint filed pursuant to 42 u.s.c. § 1983. We 

* Defendants-Appellees elected not to file an answer brief. 

After examining Plaintiff-Appellant's brief and the 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. Therefore, the case 

is ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 91-1182 Document: 010110097410 Date Filed: 11/18/1991 Page: 1 
reverse the district court's dismissal and remand for further 

proceedings. 

In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint, the district 

court must "presume[] all of plaintiff's factual allegations (to 

be] true and construe(] them in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff." Hall v. Bellman, 935 F.2d 1106, 1109 (10th Cir. 1991) 

(citation omitted); see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 

(1974). Because the district court dismissed the complaint on the 

pleadings, we make the same presumption on appeal. See Hospital 

Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976) 

(citation omitted); Coleman v. Turpen, 697 F.2d 1341, 1343 (10th 

Cir. 1982). 

The appellant alleges the following facts. Prison officials 

confiscated his stereo and refused to· return it. The appellant 

filed several administrative grievances but obtained no relief. 

He then brought suit in small claims court. Subsequently, he 

requested a default judgment but received no response from the 

court. Over the next several months, the appellant repeatedly 

wrote to the court asking for the status of his case, but never 

received any reply. Nine months after the appellant brought the 

suit, prison officials induced him to dismiss it by informing him 

that they would return his stereo. They failed to do so.

1 

1 

A prose litigant's pleadings are to be construed 

liberally and held to a less stringent standard than 

formal pleadings drafted by lawyers •••• (I]f the 

[district] court can reasonably read the pleadings to 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-1182 Document: 010110097410 Date Filed: 11/18/1991 Page: 2 
The appellant then filed suit under 42 u.s.c. § 1983 in the 

United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The 

court referred the matter to a magistrate, who recommended that 

the complaint be dismissed. The magistrate noted that 

the taking of an individual's property does not 

implicate the due process clause if there is an 

adequate, state. post-deprivation remedy. Hudson v. 

Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533-36 (1984); Durre v. Dempsey, 

869 F.2d 543, 545-48 (10th Cir. 1989). The State of 

Colorado provides the plaintiff with an adequate state 

remedy through a civil suit if he has, in fact, incurred 

damages from the confiscation of his property. 

Recommendation of United States Magistrate, Record, Tab 6, at 2 

(emphasis added). The district court accepted the magistrate's 

recommendation and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. We 

have no dispute with the magistrate's statement of the law, but we 

believe that the magistrate and the district court failed to 

recognize that the pleadings below sufficiently alleged that the 

post-deprivational procedures were inadequate. 

In Durre, we affirmed the district court's dismissal of a 

prisoner's prose section 1983 complaint. We noted that Colorado 

provided a post-deprivation remedy through a statute permitting 

suits against the Department of Corrections. 869 F.2d at 547; see 

state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could 

prevail, it should do so despite the plaintiff's failure 

to cite proper legal authority, his confusion of various 

legal theories, his poor syntax and sentence 

construction, or his unfamiliarity with pleading 

requirements. 

Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110 (citations omitted). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-1182 Document: 010110097410 Date Filed: 11/18/1991 Page: 3 
( 

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-10-106(1)(b). We also noted that the 

appellant had "pleaded no facts showing that [he was] unable 

to follow the Colorado claim procedure." 869 F.2d at 547. The 

appellant's conclusory allegations of indigency, lack of counsel, 

and confinement in prison were not sufficient there to establish 

the unavailability of a state remedy against the prison under the 

Colorado statute. See Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533 ("an unauthorized 

intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does not 

constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due 

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful 

postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available") (emphasis 

added). 

Here, the plaintiff sets forth specific facts suggesting that 

the state post-deprivation remedies were effectively denied to 

him. The fact that Colorado law permits a suit against a state 

correctional facility,~ Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-10-106(1)(b), may 

create a presumption of adequate due process and may stave off a 

facial attack, but it is not conclusive. The appellant has stated 

that he tried to make use of state procedures, but the state court 

never responded to any of his inquiries as to the status of his 

case. He alleges further that the prison officials, either 

through deception or promises not kept, wrongfully caused him to 

lose those state procedures. Thus, unlike in Durre, the appellant 

here has alleged specific facts showing that the state procedure 

has been unresponsive and inadequate. If in fact the state remedy 

was constitutionally insufficient, the appellant may have a cause 

of action under section 1983 for the confiscation of his property. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-1182 Document: 010110097410 Date Filed: 11/18/1991 Page: 4 
( 

See Coleman v. Faulkner, 697 F.2d 1347, 1349 (10th Cir. 1982) 

(post-deprivation remedies may be inadequate if the plaintiff does 

not have meaningful access to such remedies). The appellant may 

not be able to prove his allegations, but it was error to dismiss 

his complaint at the pleading stage. 

Accordingly, we REVERSE the district court's dismissal of the 

appellant's complaint and REMAND for a hearing on the adequacy of 

the state remedy. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 91-1182 Document: 010110097410 Date Filed: 11/18/1991 Page: 5