UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

DERIC VAN FLEET, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

LT. WRIGHT; LT. KARR, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 15-1038 

(D.C. No. 1:14-CV-03402-LTB) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before MATHESON, MURPHY, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Deric Van Fleet appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his amended 

prisoner complaint as legally frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). When he 

filed his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against correctional officers Lieutenants 

Wright and Karr, Mr. Van Fleet was in the custody of the Colorado Department of 

Corrections. According to his brief, he was scheduled for release on March 18, 2015. 

Interpreting the amended complaint liberally because Mr. Van Fleet does not 

have counsel, the district court deduced (1) a due process claim for deprivation of 

 *

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. 

App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

April 13, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
- 2 - 

personal property based on allegations that the defendants misplaced Mr. Van Fleet’s 

personal property when he was in segregation and some of it was missing, and (2) an 

access to courts claim based on allegations that the defendants looked at his legal 

work and misplaced some of it relating to another lawsuit. 

On the due process claim, the district court said that if the personal property 

was contraband, Mr. Van Fleet lacked a due process property interest; if it was not 

contraband, the claim fails because the complaint alleged only negligence; and if the 

complaint somehow did allege intentional deprivation, it nonetheless failed to allege 

that either the prison grievance procedure or recourse to state court constituted an 

inadequate post-deprivation remedy. 

As to the access to courts claim, the district court said the amended complaint 

failed to identify any nonfrivolous legal claim Mr. Van Fleet was unable to pursue 

and thus did not allege the actual injury that is required for such a claim. 

We review the dismissal of the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) for abuse of discretion. See McWilliams v. Colorado, 121 F.3d 

573, 574-75 (10th Cir. 1997). As the district court did, we interpret Mr. Van Fleet’s 

pro se complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). In 

doing so, we agree with the district court that, at most, the amended complaint 

attempts to allege claims for due process deprivation of personal property and access 

to the courts. We further agree the amended complaint must be dismissed as legally 

frivolous. 
- 3 - 

In his brief on appeal, Mr. Van Fleet takes issue with the district court’s 

analysis in only two statements. First, he states: “I feel the District courts 

misunderstood what grounds of relief I was asking. I am asking monetary 

compensation for all property lost . . . .” Aplt. Br. at 4. Second, he states: “The 

District court misunderstood my claim, or I worded it wrong.” Id. There is no 

indication the district court misunderstood the claim or misunderstood that Mr. Van 

Fleet seeks money damages. 

We have examined the amended complaint. We affirm dismissal of the due 

process property claim because Mr. Van Fleet failed to allege he was afforded 

inadequate process. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); Gee v. 

Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178, 1194 (10th Cir. 2010). We affirm dismissal of his access to 

the courts claim because he failed to allege actual injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 

U.S. 343, 349-55 (1996); Penrod v. Zavaras, 94 F.3d 1399, 1403 (10th Cir. 1996). 

Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the district court 

and deny Mr. Van Fleet’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT, 

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. 

Circuit Judge