Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-14-02925/USCOURTS-ca8-14-02925-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Todd Ball
Appellee
Danny Burl
Appellee
Lynette Dickerson
Appellee
Barbara Ester
Appellee
Dexter Payne
Appellee
Walton
Appellee
Charles A. Winston
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-2925

___________________________

Charles A. Winston

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Danny Burl, Warden, East Arkansas Regional Unit; Todd Ball, Deputy Warden of

Security, East Arkansas Regional Unit; Dexter Payne, Deputy Warden of

Operation, East Arkansas Regional Unit; Walton, Mailroom Supervisor, East

Arkansas Regional Unit; Barbara Ester, Estate of Barbara Ester, deceased, Property

Supervisor, East Arkansas Regional Unit; Lynette Dickerson, Property Supervisor,

East Arkansas Regional Unit

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena

____________

 Submitted: March 11, 2015

Filed: March 17, 2015 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, BENTON Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 14-2925 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/17/2015 Entry ID: 4254958 
Arkansas prisoner Charles Winston appeals the district court’s dismissal of his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging defendants wrongfully destroyed his property

and retaliated against him for filing grievances. After careful review of the record, we

affirm. Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (de novo

review of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A dismissal); Fullington v. Pfizer, Inc., 720 F.3d 739, 747

(8th Cir. 2013) (court of appeals may affirm on any basis supported by record).

The district court correctly decided that Winston failed to state a procedural due

process claim based on the destruction of his property because Arkansas provided an

adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984)

(unauthorized deprivation of property does not constitute violation of procedural due

process if meaningful post-deprivation remedy is available); Willis Smith & Co., Inc.

v. Arkansas, 548 F.3d 638, 640 (8th Cir. 2008) (Arkansas provides adequate postdeprivation remedy for property claims through Arkansas State Claims Commission). 

Additionally, the statute of limitations barred any claims based on conduct that

occurred before December 30, 2010, see Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736, 739 (8th Cir.

2001) (Arkansas 3-year statute of limitations for personal injuries applies to § 1983

claims), and, to the extent the complaint raised timely claims against Lynette

Dickerson based on retaliation, denial of access to the courts, or violations of prison

policies, remand is unnecessary because the allegations failed to state a claim, see

Atkinson v. Bohn, 91 F.3d 1127, 1129 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (plaintiff must

allege sufficient facts to infer retaliatory animus to state retaliation claim); Hartsfield

v. Nichols, 511 F.3d 826, 831-32 (8th Cir. 2008) (denial of access to courts claim must

be supported by showing actual injury, i.e., that non-frivolous legal claim was

frustrated or impeded); Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430-31 (8th Cir. 1997)

(violating prison policy does not give rise to § 1983 claim).

Therefore, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-2925 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/17/2015 Entry ID: 4254958