Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-16-01176/USCOURTS-ca8-16-01176-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brody Duncan
Not Party
Cletis Goodman
Appellant
Thomas R. Johnson
Not Party
Jennifer Stehlik Ladman
Appellee
Sanfford Pollack
Not Party
Seward County Sheriff's Office
Appellee
Seward County, Nebraska
Appellee
State of Nebraska
Not Party

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-1176

___________________________

Cletis Goodman

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Sanfford Pollack

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant

Jennifer Stehlik Ladman

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

Brody Duncan; State of Nebraska, Seward County Nebraska & Sheriff

Department; Thomas R. Johnson; State of Nebraska

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants

Seward County, Nebraska; Seward County Sheriff's Office

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska - Omaha

____________

 Submitted: August 24, 2016

Filed: August 29, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Appellate Case: 16-1176 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/29/2016 Entry ID: 4442171 
Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Cletis Goodman appeals fromthe order of the District Court dismissing his 42 1

U.S.C. § 1983 action that alleged due process violations related to the seizure of his

personal property during a criminal investigation. After careful review, we conclude

that Goodman could not proceed on a due-process claim because Nebraska law

provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517,

533 (1984) (holding “that an unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a

state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the

Due Process Clause . . . if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is

available”); State v. Agee, 741 N.W.2d 161, 168 (Neb. 2007) (noting in an appeal

from an order overruling a motion for the return of property seized in a criminal case

“that the government’s disposition . . . of property does not moot a motion for return

of the property”); see also Adams v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 813 F.3d 1151, 1154

(8th Cir. 2016) (“We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss.”);

Spirtas Co. v. Nautilus Ins. Co., 715 F.3d 667, 670–71 (8th Cir. 2013) (“This court

can affirm on any basis supported in the record.”). 

We affirm the judgment of the District Court and deny the pending motion for

sanctions.

______________________________

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the

1

District of Nebraska. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 16-1176 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/29/2016 Entry ID: 4442171