T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. W e cons t rue pro se p le a d in g s lib e ra lly. Ledbet t erv. C i t y of Topeka, Kan. , 1 3 1 8 F . 3 d 1 1 8 3 , 1 1 8 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t30,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
RI CH A RD LY N N D O PP,

P lain tiff - A p p e llan t, N o. 05- 5057 v. N . D . O kl a. B E N L O R I N G , D i s t r i c tA t t o r n e y; T OM M AY; DAVI D ANDE RS ON; CHRI S M ORRI S ; ROB GARNER; E D WA R D WY A N T ; O T T A WA CO UN TY B OA RD OF CO UN TY CO M M I SSI O N ER S,

D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees. ( D. C. No. 0 2 - CV - 6 5 9 - E)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T *
B efor e KELLY , O’ BRI EN , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es.

R i char d L ynn D opp, an O kl ahoma st at e pr i s onerappea r i ng pr o s e and in fo rm a p a up e ris , app eal s fr om t he d i stri ctcou rt ’s dis m i ssal of h i s pro se compl ai nt b r o u g h tp u r s u a n tt o 4 2 U. S . C. § 1 9 8 3 . Ex e r c i s i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. 1L or i ng and W y antw er e O t t aw a C ountyD i s tr i ctA t t orneyand A s s i s t ant 2 D i s t r i ctA t t or ney , r es pect i vel y , att he t i m e the s ear ch w arr antw as exec ut ed on D op p’s r esi den ce. M ayand A nd ers on w ere Lo ri ng ’s and W y ant’ s successor s, resp ec ti v ely . M o rri s is an inv esti g ator fo r th e O tt aw a C o u n tyD istri ct A tt o rne y ’s O ffice . G a rn e r o w n s a n d o p e ra tes B o b G a rn e r G a ra g e a n d W re c k in g S e rv ice in P iche r, O k laho m a, w h ere m an yo f th e v eh icl es se ized fro m D o p p ’s reside n ce w ere to w e d . Do p p a l s o n a me d t h e Ot t a wa Co u n tyBo a r d o f Co mm i s s i o n e r s . He a lle g e d , in tera lia , t he B oar d vi ol at ed hi s E i ghth A m endmentr i ght s . T he di s t r i ct cour tdi s m i s s ed the Ei ght h A m endmentcl ai m w i thoutpr ej udi ce. L at er , D opp s ucce s s ful l ym oved t o di s m i s s t he B oar d w i thoutpr ej udi ce. -2- § 1 2 9 1 , we a ffi r m. I . Backg r ound O n M a y8 , 1 9 9 6 , a s tate se a rc h w a rra n t w a s e x e c u ted u p o n D o p p ’s p ro p e rty i n W y andott e, O kl ahoma. I n addi t i on t o di s cover i ng a l ar ge amountof drugs and drug par aphernal i a, offi cer s s ei zed a num berof per s onal pr opertyi t ems bel i eved t o be the pr ocee ds of D opp’ s i l l egal drug ent erpr i s e. D opp w as arr es t ed and even tuall ycon vict ed in O klahom a st at e cou rtof v ari ou s drug an d fir earm charges. In M a y1 9 9 8 , h e w a s s e n te n c e d to , in tera lia , l i fe i m pr i s onm entw i thoutt he pos s i bi l i t yof par ol e. O n A ugus t22, 2002, D opp fi l ed a pr o s e § 1983 compl ai ntagai ns tB en L o rin g , T o m M a y , D a v id A n d e rso n , C h ris M o rris, E d w a rd W y a n t (S tate D efe ndant s ) and B ob G arner , al l egi ng theyhad di s pos ed of c er t ai n per s onal pr oper t ys ei zed f

r om hi s r es i dence w i thoutpr ovi di ng hi m not i ce ora pr edepr i vat i on hear i ng i n vi ol at i on of the Fi fth and Four t eenth A m endment s of the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on and O kl ahoma l aw . Speci fi cal l y , D opp as s er t ed they 2Do p p a l s o a l l e g e d t h e S t a t e De fe n d a n t s wr o n g f u l l yd i s p o s e d o f

t wo 3 R em i ng t on M od el 11 00 shotguns. T he St at e D efe ndant s as s er t ed thes e s hot guns w e re re le a s e d to D o p p ’s a tto rn e yo f re c o rd . T h e d istric t co u rt fo u n d th e S tate D e fe n d a n ts w e re leg a llye n tit led to re lea se th e g u n s to D o p p ’s a tto rn e ya n d d id n o t v io late h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts b yd o in g so . D o p p d o e s n o t ch a llen g e th is ru lin g o n a p p e a l. See Mar t i nezv. A ar on , 5 7 0 F . 2 d 3 1 7 (10 th C ir . 1 9 7 8 ) (en b an c). 4 -3- had w r ongful l ydi s pos ed of the fol l ow i ng per s onal pr operty , none of w hi ch w as us ed as evi dence i n hi s cr i m i nal tr i al : ( 1) 1965 For d pi ckup truck, V I N N o. 1 0 D K 6 4 1 0 7 9 , (2) $ 3 3 , 7 2 5 ca sh , (3) $ 1 3 9 ca sh , (4) 4 0 0 C h an n el R ea li sti c sc an n er, ( 5) m i s cel l aneous bul l et s , ( 6) m i s cel l aneous paper s , ( 7) U . S. pas s por tand ( 8) t hirt een p ho t og raphs. 3 T her eaf t er , D efe ndantG arnerfi l ed a pro se ans w erdeny i ng the al l egat i ons i n t he compl ai nt . T he St at e D efe ndant s fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s . T he di s tr i ct c o u rt d e n ied th e m o tio n to d ism iss , co n c lu d in g D o p p ’s c o m p lain t h a d su fficie n tly s t at ed a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef maybe gr ant ed. H ow ever , i tdet erm i ned an in v e stig a tio n a n d sp e c ial re p o rt w e re n e c e ss a ryto d e v e lo p a re c o rd su fficie n t to a s c e rt a in w h e th e r t h e re w e re a n yfa c tu a l a n d le g a l b a s e s fo r D o p p ’s c la im s . C ons equent l y , t he courtdi r ect ed the St at e D efe ndant s t o i nves t i gat e the compl ai nt and pr epar e a M ar t i nez re p o rt w ith in six tyd a y s. T h e re a f ter , the S tate 4 D efe ndant s fi l ed a M ar t i nez re p o rt w ith su p p o rtin g e x h ib its a n d sim u ltan e o u sly fi l ed an a ns w erand a ne w m ot i on t o di s m i s s . A l m os ta y earl at er , t he di s tr i ct cou rtadv i sed t he p art i es byorder that the m oti on t o d i sm i ss w ou l d b e t reat ed as aT h e S tate D e fe n d a n ts’ b rie f d o e s n o t co n tain a n yre c o rd c itatio n s a n d th e ir 5 ar gum ent s ar e es s ent i al l yl i m i t ed t o as s er t i ng the di s tr i ctcourtw as corr ect . Such a conc l us or ybr i ef i s nothel pful t o ourr evi ew of the ca s e. -4- m o tio n fo r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. O n O ct ober1, 2004, D opp m oved t o amend hi s compl ai ntand att ache d a p ro p o se d a m e n d e d c o m p lain t. T h e c o u rt d e n ied D o p p ’s m o tio n a n d a g a in r emi nded the part i es t he pendi ng m ot i on t o di s m i s s w as bei ng tr eat ed as a mot i on fo r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. Itg a v e th e p a rties a n a d d iti o n a l tw e n tyd a y s to file s um m aryj udgm entm at er i al s and/ ors uppl ement al r es pons es . O n M ar ch 11, 2005, t he courtdi s m i s s ed w i t houtpr ej udi ce D opp’ s cl ai m s agai ns tD efe ndantG arnerfor fa ilu re to s ta te a c la im u p o n w h ic h re lie f m a yb e g ra n te d u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )( 2 )( B ) a n d g ra n te d th e S ta te D e fe n d a n ts ’ m o tio n fo r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. D o p p filed a m o tio n to a lter o r a m e n d th e M a rc h 1 1 , 2 0 0 5 o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t, w hi ch w as deni ed. T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. 5 I I . D i s cus s i on D opp chal l enges t he court ’ s di s m i s s al of hi s cl ai m s agai ns tD efe ndant G arnerunder28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) and i t s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entt o t he S tate D e fe n d a n ts. H e f u rth e r a lleg e s th e c o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h im lea v e to a m e n d h is c o m p la in t. A . D ef endantG arner A f ter e x e c u tin g th e se a rc h w a rra n t o n D o p p ’s p ro p e rty , the S tate D efe ndant s had a numberof vehi cl es t ow ed fr om D opp’ s pr opertyt o B ob G arnerD opp w as outon bond fr om M ay12, 1996, t hr ough M ay1, 1998. 6 A ccor di ng t o G arner ’ s aff i davi t , D opp “r etr i eved a l l of the vehi cl es exce pt 7 [the 1965 For d t ruck] , s t at i ng he w as n’ tveryconce rned abouti t , even though he s till h a d a la rg e w a d o f c a s h a f te r h a v in g p a id fo r t h e re le a s e o f th e o th e r v e h ic le s . He d i d t e l l me h e mi g h tb e b a c k l a t e rt o g e tt h a tv e h i c l e . He n e v e rr e tu rn e d . ” ( R. V ol . I , D oc. 41 at90. ) H ow ever , beca us e D opp’ s cl ai m agai ns tG arnerw as di s m i s s ed on the pl eadi ngs , w e tr eatD opp’ s al l egat i ons as t rue. P erki ns v. Kan. D ep’tof C orr. , 1 6 5 F . 3 d 8 0 3 , 8 0 6 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). -5- G ar age a nd W r ecke rSer vi ce. A m ong thos e vehi cl es w as a 1965 For d pi ckup t ruck, V I N N o. 10D K 641079, w hi ch i s the s ubj ectof thi s l aw s ui t . O n M ay24, 1 9 9 6 , D efen d an t L o ri n g fil ed an “A u tho ri za ti o n to R elea se P rop erty ” in D o p p ’s s t at e cr i m i nal act i on w hi ch author i zed the r el eas e of c er t ai n pr operty , i ncl udi ng th e 1 9 6 5 F o rd p ick u p tru c k , to D o p p . O v e r th e n e x t co u p le o f d a y s, D o p p p a id D e fe n d a n t G a rn e r th e to w in g a n d sto ra g e fe e s fo r six v e h icle s s e ize d f ro m h is res i den ce and ob t ai ned t heirrel ease. H ow ever, D op p d i d n ot s ecure the rel ease 6 of the 1965 For d t ruck, s t at i ng he r an outof m oneyt o payi t s t ow i ng and s t or age fee s . H e al s o l earned he w as notl egal l yr equi r ed t o payt he t ow i ng and s t or age 7 fe e s . A ppr oxi m at el yt w o y ear s l at er( M ay1998) , G arners ol d the 1965 For d t ruck fors t or age fees ow ed aga i ns ti t . O n A pr i l 11, 2001, D opp w r ot e G arnera l et t er i nqui r i ng aboutt he truck. B eca us e G arnerhad s ol d i t , he di d notr es pond t o t he lette r. O n A p ril 2 1 , 2 0 0 1 , D o p p d isc o v e re d G a rn e r h a d so ld th e tru c k . In h is compl ai nt , D opp al l eged G arner , act i ng undercol orof s t at e l aw , di s pos ed of the t ruck w i t houtpr ovi di ng hi m not i ce ora pr e- depr i vat i on hear i ng i n vi ol at i on of du e process.T he di s t r i ctcour tal s o concl uded D opp’ s cl ai m agai ns tG arnerw as barr ed 8 byt he tw o- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . G i ven thatt he truck’ s s al e di d not c o n stitu te s tate a c tio n , w e n e e d n o t ad d re ss th e tim e lin e ss o f D o p p ’s c o m p lain t. -6- T he di s t r i ctcour tdi s m i s s ed w i thoutpr ej udi ce D opp’ s cl ai m agai ns tG arner fo r fa ilu re to s ta te a c la im u p o n w h ic h re lie f m a yb e g ra n te d u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B ). S p e c ifica lly , itfo u n d G a rn e r’s sa le o f th e tru c k w a s n o t sta te act i on and ther efor e D opp coul d nots t at e a due pr oces s cl ai m agai ns tG arner un der § 19 83 . D op p argue s the co urterr ed in di sm i ssi ng his cl ai m against 8 G arner . R el y i ng on C ol em an v. Turpe n , he cont ends t he truck’ s s al e cons t i tut ed sta te a c tio n b e c a u se G a rn e r to w e d a n d sto re d th e tru c k a t th e d ire c tio n o f sta te o ffi c e r s a n d s o l d t h e t ru c k fo rs t o r a g e fe e s o we d a g a i n s ti tp u r s u a n tt o Ok l a h o ma s ta tu te . 6 9 7 F .2 d 1 3 4 1 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ). We r e v i e w de novo a d istric t co u rt’s d ism iss a l o f a c o m p lain t fo r fa ilu re to stat e a claim u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ). P erki ns , 1 6 5 F .3 d a t 8 0 6 . D i s m i s s al of a pr o s e compl ai ntforfai l ur e t o s t at e a cl ai m i s pr oper onl yw her e i ti s obvi ous t hat the pl ai nt i ff c annotpr evai l on t he fa ct s he has al l eged and i t w oul d be fut i l e t o gi ve hi m an oppor tuni tyt o amend. I n det erm i ni ng w hetherdi s m i s s al i s pr oper , w e mustacc eptthe al l egati on s of t he co m plai nt as true and w e m ustco n strue those al l ega t i ons , and anyr eas onabl e i nfer ence s thatm i ghtbe dr aw n fr om th e m , in th e lig h t m o s t fa v o ra b le to th e p la in tiff. Id. (cit ati o n o m itted). U nder§ 1983, l i abi l i t yat t ache s onl yt o conductoccurr i ng undercol orof s t at e l aw ; conductcons t i tut i ng s t at e ac t i on undert he Four t eenth A m endment s a tis fie s th is re q u ir e m e n t. Lugar v . E dm onds on O i l C o. , 457 U . S. 922, 935 n. 18-7-

(19 8 2 ). Pr i vat e conduc tcons t i tut es s t at e ac t i on i f i ti s “fa i r l yattr i but abl e t o the St at e. ” Id. a t 9 3 7 ; see Sco t tv. H ern , 2 1 6 F .3 d 8 9 7 , 9 0 6 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). T h is r equi r ementi s s at i s fi ed i f tw o condi t i ons ar e met : ( 1) “the depr i vat i on m us tbe c a u se d b yth e e x e rc ise o f so m e rig h t o r p riv ileg e c re a ted b yth e S tate o r b ya ru le of conduc ti m pos ed byt he s t at e orbya per s on forw hom the St at e i s r es pons i bl e” and ( 2) t he pr i vat e part ychar ged w i th the depr i vat i on “mustbe a pe r s on w ho m ay fa irlyb e sa id to b e a sta te a c to r. T h is m a yb e b e c a u se h e is a sta te o fficia l, b e c a u se h e h a s a c ted to g e th e r w ith o r h a s o b tain e d sig n ifica n t aid f ro m sta te offi ci al s , orbeca us e hi s conducti s otherw i s e cha r geabl e t o the St at e. ” Lugar , 457 U . S. at937. I ti s undi s put ed G arneri s nota s t at e off i cerorempl oy ee a nd ther efor e the di s t r i ctcourtpr oper l ycons i der ed hi m a pr i vat e i ndi vi dual . A ppl y i ng Lugar , we c o n c lu d e G a rn e r’s sa le o f th e tru c k w a s n o t sta te a c tio n . G a rn e r p re su m a b lyso ld t he truck pur s uantt o O K LA . S TAT . ti t. 1 2 A , § 7 -21 0 (all o w ing a w are h o u sem an ’s l i en fors t or age fees t o be enfor ced bypubl i c orpr i vat e s al e of the goods aft er not i ce t o al l per s ons know n t o cl ai m an i nt er es ti n the goods ) . T her efor e, G arner ’ s s al e of the truck s at i s fi es t he fi r s tpr ong of the Lugartes t. See Col em an , 697 F. 2d at1345 ( concl udi ng fi r s tpartof Lugart es tw as m etw her e defendant w r ecke rs ervi ce s ol d pr oper t ypur s uantt o O K LA . S TAT . tit. 1 2 A , § 7 -2 1 0 ). H ow ever , t he truck’ s s al e fa i l s t o s at i s fyt he s econd pa r tof Lugar . A l though G arnerw as act i ng fort he St at e w hen he t ow ed the truck, t her e i s abs ol ut el yno-8-

evi dence t he St at e D efe ndant s oranyothers t at e off i ci al as s i s t ed G arneri n s el l i ng t h e t ru c k o ro t h e r wi s e e n c o u r a g e d o ra u th o r i z e d h i m t o d o s o . I n d e e d , a tth e t i me G arners ol d t he truck, t he St at e D efe ndant s had r el eas ed i tt o D opp. T hus , G arner w a s h o ld in g th e tru c k fo r D o p p , n o t th e S ta te , a t th e tim e o f th e s a le . C o n s e q u e n tly, th e s a le o f th e tru c k is n o t “ c h a rg e a b le to th e S ta te .” C ol em an is cl ea rl yd ist ing u isha b le. T h ere , the p o li ce seize d C o lem an ’s c a m p e r a n d h ire d K iefe r to to w a n d sto re it. L a ter , K iefe r so ld th e c a m p e r to s at i s fyi t s s t or age fees w i t houtpr ovi di ng not i ce t o C ol eman. C ol eman sue d K ie fe r u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 a lle g in g h e d e p ri v e d h im o f h is p ro p e rt yw ith o u t d u e p ro c e s s . T he di s t r i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed the cl ai m concl udi ng K i efe rw as notact i ng under c o l o ro f l a w a n d t h e r e fo r e w a s n o ts u s c e p t i b l e t o s u i tu n d e r§ 1 9 8 3 . We di s agr eed, fi ndi ng K i efe r ’ s s al e of the ca m pers at i s fi ed both pr ongs of Lugar . W i t h r egar d t o t he s econd pr ong, w e s t at ed: K i e fe rj o i n t l y p a rt i c i p a t e d i n s e i z i n g th e [ c a m p e r ] b y t o w i n g i ta w a y. Si nce the Sta te h a s as s er t ed a r i ghtt o m ai ntai n pos s es s i on of t he camper, K i ef

erhel d t he t r uck f

ort he Stat e, not for M r. C ol em an . In al l ow i ng K i efe rt o s el l t he ca m per , the St at e thus depr i ved M r . C ol eman o f h is pro p ertyin joint pa rt ici p ati o n w ith K iefe r. W e h o ld tha t K iefe r’s s al e of t he cam per w as s t at e ac t i on underthe fourt eenth amendm entand w as t her efor e undercol orof s t at e l aw forpurpos es of s ect i on 1983. Id. ( emphasi s added) . U nl i ke i n C ol em an , G arnerw as hol di ng the truck forD opp, nott he St at e, att he t i m e of i t s s al e. T hi s cas e i s m or e aki n t o We in ra u c h v . P a rkC ity , 7 5 1 F . 2 d 3 5 7 (10 th C ir . 1984) . T her e, a pol i ce offi cerhad Speer s t ow W ei nr auch’ s vehi cl e t o an i m pound-9-

l ot . L at er , t he pol i ce offi ceri nform ed W ei nr auch s he coul d r ecove rhercarby pay i ng Speer s a t ow i ng fee . W hen W ei nr auch a rr i ved atthe i m pound l ot , no a tte n d a n t w a s p re s e n t. T h e re fo re , s h e to o k h e r v e h ic le w ith o u t p a y in g th e fe e . Shor t l yt her eaf

t er , t he vehi cl e w as r eport ed s t ol en. T w o pol i ce offi cer s r es ponded t o t he ca l l and bega n pur s ui ng W ei nr auch’ s vehi cl e. Speer s al s o hear d the pol i ce r epor t . C oncl udi ng t hatt he ca rw as fr om the i m pound l ot , Speer s al s o began pur s ui ng W ei nr auch’ s vehi cl e. I n t he end, W ei nr auch w as s t opped bythe pol i ce and s he pai d Speer s hi s fee . W ei nr auch br oughts ui tagai ns tSpeer s under§ 1983 bas ed on hi s pur s ui tof hervehi cl e. T he di s tr i ctcour tdi s m i s s ed, concl udi ng S p e e r s w a s n o ta c t i n g u n d e rc o l o ro f s t a t e l a w w i th i n th e m e a n i n g o f § 1 9 8 3 . We agr eed: I ti s cl eart hatSpeer s w as act i ng forthe s t at e w hen he i ni t i al l yt ow ed th e c a r. C ol em an v. Turpe n , 6 9 7 F .2 d 1 3 4 1 , 1 3 4 5 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ). H ow ever , t he evi dence i s undi s put ed thatSpeer s w as notper form i ng C i t yt ow i ng s ervi ces w hen he tr i ed t o s t op W ei nr auch’ s carand that th e p o lic e h a d n o t r e q u e s te d o r a u th o ri z e d h is a s s is ta n c e . Id. at360- 61. Si m i l ar l y , t he St at e D efe ndant s di d notr eques torauthor i ze G arner to s e ll th e tru c k . B ec au se G arn er’s sale o f th e truc k w as n o t st ate a cti o n , the d istri ct co u rt pr oper l yconcl uded D opp had fa i l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef maybe gr ant ed aga i ns tG arner . T hi s defi ci encycoul d nothave be en cur ed byamendm ent o f th e c o m p la in t. B . S ta te D e

fen da n ts-10-

D opp ar gues t he di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entt o the St at e D efe ndant s conce r ni ng t he ( 1) 1965 For d pi ckup truck, V I N N o. 1 0 D K 6 4 1 0 7 9 , (2) $ 3 3 , 7 2 5 ca sh , (3) $ 1 3 9 ca sh , (4) 4 0 0 C h an n el R ea li sti c S ca n n er, ( 5) m i s cel l aneous bul l et s , ( 6) m i s cel l aneous paper s , ( 7) U . S. pas s por tand ( 8) t h i r t e e n p h o t o g r a p h s . We r e v i e w de novo a gr antof s um m aryj udgm ent , appl y i ng t he s ame l egal s t andar d us ed bythe di s tr i ctcour tunderR ul e 56( c) of the Feder al R u le s o f C iv il P ro c e d u re . R ohr baugh v. C el ot ex Corp. , 5 3 F .3 d 1 1 8 1 , 1 1 8 2 (1 0 th C i r. 19 95 ). S um m aryj ud gm ent i s approp ri at e “i f t he p l eadings, dep osi t i on s, a n sw e rs to in ter ro g a to rie s, a n d a d m iss io n s o n file, to g e th e r w ith th e a ffid a v its, if any , s how t hatt her e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand thatthe m ovi ng par t yi s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” F ED . R . C IV . P . 5 6 (c).

1. 1965 For d Pi ckup Truc k, V i n N o. 10D K 641079 I n hi s compl ai nt , D opp al l eged D efe ndant s L or i ng and W y antdi s pos ed of hi s 1965 For d pi ckup truck w i t houtpr ovi di ng hi m not i ce ora pr e- depr i vat i on h e a rin g in v io latio n o f d u e p ro c e ss . T h e d istric t co u rt c o n c lu d e d L o rin g law f u lly r el eas ed anycl ai m t o the truck i n M ay1996 and D opp had fa i l ed t o pr ovi de any fa cts co n n ec ti n g W y an t, o r an yo f th e o ther S tat e D efen d an ts, to the tru ck ’s d isp o sa l. D opp cont ends t he courti m pr oper l ygr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entt o L or i ng and W y antbas ed on thei rr el eas e of the truck t o hi m i n M ay1996. He c l a i ms L ori ng and W y ant never r ai sed t his defe nse and therefore w ai ved i t . D op p als oSee O K LA . S TAT . t i t . 63, § 2- 506 ( O ) , ( Q ) ( s t at i ng a bona f i de ow nerw ho 9 r ecove r s pr oper t ys ei zed unde rt hi s s t atut e s hal l notbe l i abl e fors t or age fees unl es s t he ow nerfai l s t o r ecove rt he pr opertyw i thi n thi r tyday s of r ece i vi ng w ri tt en n o ti ce fro m the s eizing ag en cy ). D o p p co rrectl ystat es th e S tat e D efen d an ts did n o t m o v e fo r sum m ary 10 j udgm entbas ed on the M ay1996 r el eas e. N everthel es s , “[e ] ven i f a gr ound i s not ur ged bya part y , w her e the r equi r ement s of R ul e 56 ar e met , t he courti s not barr ed fr om anycons i der at i on of thatgr ound. I tcan gr ants um m aryj udgm enton gr ounds ot hert han thos e r ai s ed . . . i f the fa ct s ar e ful l ydevel oped s how i ng ent i t l ement. . . t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw [and i t ] i s s at i s fi ed ther e i s no pr ocedur al pr ej udi ce t o t he [other ] party . ” Wi lderv. P r okop , 846 F. 2d 613, 626 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 8 ); s ee als o How el lP etr ol eum C or p. v. Leben O i lC or

p. , 976 F. 2d 614, 620 ( 10t h C i r . 1992) ( s t at i ng “a di s tr i ctcourti n appr opr i at e ci r cumst ance s m ayg ran t sum m aryjud g m en t on a g rou n d n o t fo rm all yraised in a s u m m ary ju d g m e n t m o tio n ” ). I n th is c a s e , Mar t i nezre p o rt sta ted th e tru c k w a s re lea se d to D o p p in M a y1 9 9 6 a n d th e re lea se w a s a ttac h e d to th e re p o rt. A d d iti o n a lly , in h is r es pons e t o t he St at e D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s ( cons trued as a mot i on for su m m a ryju d g m e n t), D o p p a rg u e d th e re lea se c o u ld n o t b e c o n sid e re d b e c a u se it w a s c o n d itio n e d o n h im p a y in g th e tru c k ’s to w in g a n d s to ra g e fe e s . C ons equent l y , t he R ul e 56 r equi r ement s w er e s at i s fi ed and D opp w as not p reju d ic e d . -11- ar gues L or i ng and W y antdi d noteffectthe r el eas e of hi s truck bec aus e the re lea se w a s c o n d iti o n e d u p o n h im p a y in g a ll t o w in g a n d sto ra g e fe e s, c o n tra ryto O kl ahoma s t atut e. H e al l eges G arnerr efus ed t o r el eas e the truck t o hi m w i thout 9 p a ym e n t o f

s to ra g e fe e s p u rs u a n t to L o ri n g a n d W y a n t’ s in s tru c tio n s . T her e i s abs ol ut el yno evi dence t hatL or i ng and W y antw er e i nvol ved i n t he tru ck ’s sale. I n fa ct, theyh ad release d the truc k to D o p p in M ay1 9 9 6 , tw o y ea rs pr i ort o i t s s al e. A l t hough D opp as s er t s L or i ng and W y antcondi t i oned s uch 10
re lea se o n th e p a ym e n t o f sto ra g e fe e s, th e re is n o e v id e n c e to su p p o rt th is as s er t i on. M or e i m por t ant l y , t he fa i l ur e t o r el eas e the truck i n M ay1996 w i thout-12-

th e p a ym e n t o f

sto ra g e fe e s is n o t th e c o n d u c t D o p p a lleg e s d e p riv e d h im o f h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts. R a th e r, D o p p ’s c laim h a s a lw a y s b e e n th a t th e S tate D e fe n d a n t s w r o n g f

u l l y di spos edof hi s truck i n vi ol at i on of hi s cons t i tut i onal rig h ts. In d e e d , an yc laim th a t h e w a s im p ro p e rlyre q u ire d to p a ysto ra g e fe e s to obt ai n t he r el eas e of hi s t ruck i s unt i m el ybeca us e D opp l earned i n M ay - J une 1996 t hatr equi r i ng paym entof s t or age fees w as contr aryt o O kl ahoma l aw . T he cour tpr oper l ygr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entt o the St at e D efe ndant s as t o the pi ckup truck.

2. C as h ( $33, 725 and $139) T he ca s h s ei zed f

r om D opp’ s r es i dence w as pl ace d i n the evi dence r oom at t he D i s t r i ct A t t or ney ’ s D rug T as k For ce offi ce. I n A pr i l 2001, t he off i ce w as bur gl ar i zed a nd s ever al i t ems fr om t he evi dence r oom , i ncl udi ng the ca s h s ei zed fr om D opp’ s r es i dence , w er e s t ol en. A ful l i nves t i gat i on w as conduct ed, r es ul t i ng in a s u s p e c t. H ow ever , no char ges w er e fi l ed bec aus e ther e w as i ns uffi ci ent admi s s i bl e evi dence t o es t abl i s h pr obabl e ca us e. I n hi s compl ai nt , D opp ar gued t he St at e D efe ndant s vi ol at ed hi s Four t eenth A m endmentdue pr oces s r i ght s by di s pos i ng of thi s cas h w i t houtnot i ce ora pr e- depr i vat i on hear i ng. R el y i ng on H uds on v. P al m er , t he di s t r i ctcourtconcl uded the St at e D efe ndant s w er e ent i t l ed t o s um m aryj udgm entbeca us e i n cas es l i ke thi s , w her e the pr operty ’ s di s pos al w a s ra n d o m a n d u n a u th o riz e d , d u e p ro c e ss is v io late d o n lyif a sta te’ s p o stdepr i vat i on r emedi es ar e unava i l abl e, unr es pons i ve ori nadequa t e. 468 U . S. 517-13-

( 1984) . I tconcl uded the O kl ahoma G overnm ent al T or tC l ai m s A ctpr ovi ded a re m e d yfo r u n law f

u l d e p riv a tio n o f

p ro p e rtya n d D o p p h a d fa iled to a lleg e th is r emedyw as unavai l abl e, unr es pons i ve ori nadequa t e. A lth o u g h w e a g ree w ith the d istri ct co u rtthat the S tat e D efen d an ts are e n title d to s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t a s to th e c a s h , w e d o s o o n a d iffe re n t b a s is . Uni t ed Stat es v. Sandoval , 2 9 F .3 d 5 3 7 , 5 4 2 n .6 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ) (“ W e a re f re e to affirm a d istri ct co u rtd ec isi o n o n an yg rou n d s fo r w h ich th ere is a reco rd s uffi ci entt o perm i tconcl us i ons of l aw , even gr ounds notr el i ed upon bythe di s t r i ctcourt . ”) . I n Da n i e l s v . Wi l l i a ms , the Supr eme C our thel d: “[T] he D ue P r o c e s s C l a u s e [ o f

t h e F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t ] i s s i m p l y n o ti m p l i c a t e d b y a negl i gentactof an offi ci al caus i ng uni nt ended l os s of ori nj ur yt o l i fe, l i berty , or pr oper t y . ” 474 U . S. 327, 328 ( 1986) . B eca us e D opp al l eges he w as depr i ved of hi s m oneybyt he St at e D efe ndant s ’ negl i gence ( i . e. , nott aki ng adequa t e meas ur es t o s a fe g u a r d h i s mo n e y ) , t h e F o u r t e e n th Ame n d me n td o e s n o ta ffo r d h i m a r e m e d y. 3 . R e m a in in g p ro p e rty A ccor di ng t o t he M ar t i nez r eport , the s canne r , m i s cel l aneous bul l et s and mi s c e l l a n e o u s p a p e r s r e ma i n i n t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f De fe n d a n tM o rr i s a tth e Ot t a wa C ount y , O kl ahoma, D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s O ffi ce. A s t o D opp’ s U . S. pas s por tand the t h i r t e e n p h o t o g r a p h s , De fe n d a n tM o rr i s d e l i v e r e d th e m t o Ka th ryn De p e w, A ss ista n t U n ited S tate s A tto rn e yfo r th e N o rth e rn D istric t o f O k lah o m a , in-14-

connec t i on w i t h a fe der al for fei tur e hea r i ng i n C as e N o. 96- C V - 924, and they rem ain in h er p o sses sion . B ec au se th e it em s are sti ll in law en fo rce m en t’ s p o ss e ss io n a n d h a v e n o t b e e n d isp o se d o f, the d istric t co u rt c o n c lu d e d th e fa c ts d id n o t sup p o rtD o p p ’s w ron g fu l dispo sal claim an d the S tat e D efen d an ts w ere ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas t o t hes e i t ems. D opp does notappea rt o cont es tt he cou rt ’s con cl usi on . R at her, he argu es the S t at e D efen dan t s’ ret enti on of these item s, d e sp ite b e in g o rd e re d b yth e ju d g e p re sid in g o v e r h is s tate c rim in a l ca se to r etur n t hem t o hi m , cons t i tut es conver s i on and the courterr ed i n notaddr es s i ng t h i s c l a i m. T h e re co rd re v ea ls th at i n D o p p ’s st ate c o u rtcrim inal ca se, th e c o u rt o rd e re d th e S tate to re lea se th e se item s to D o p p o r sh o w c a u se w h yth e ysh o u ld notbe r etur ned t o hi m . I n t he M ar t i nez rep o rt , the S tat e D efen d an ts al lege d “[ n ]o one has m ade a nyat t empt t o pi ck up orotherw i s e cont actt he St at e aboutpi cki ng u p [ th e se item s.] It w o u ld b e ill e g a l fo r th e S tate to d e liv e r [ th e se item s] to [D o p p ] w h il e h e is i n ca rce rated . ” (R . V o l. I, D o c. 41 at 3.) T h ere fo re, i t app ea rs t he St at e D efe ndant s ar e w i l l i ng t o r el eas e the pr operty , j us tnott o D opp per s onal l ydue t o hi s i ncar cer at i on. I n anyevent , w hi l e i ti s t rue D opp al l eged a s t at e l aw conver s i on cl ai m i n hi s compl ai nt , t he di s tr i ctcourtdecl i ned supp l em ental j uri sdi ct i on ov er i t , as w el l as D op p’s other st at e l aw cl ai m s, b e c a u se th e fe d e ra l cla im s h a d b e e n d ism iss e d . It d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in d o in g s o . Ro b e y v . S h ap i r o , M a r i a n o s & Ce j da , L . L . C. , 434 F. 3d 1208, 1213-15-

( 10t h C i r . 2006) . “The di s t r i ctcourt s m aydecl i ne t o exer ci s e s uppl ement al ju risd ictio n o v e r a [ sta te la w ] c laim . . . if . . . th e d istric t co u rt h a s d ism iss e d a ll cl ai m s overw hi ch i thas or i gi nal j ur i s di ct i on. ” 28 U . S. C . § 1367( c) ( 3) . D opp has p ro v id e d n o a rg u m e n t as to h o w th e c o u rt a b u se d th is d isc re tio n ; h e m e re ly as s er t s fede r al cl ai m s s t i l l exi s t . T hi s ar gum enti s for ecl os ed byouraff i r m ance of t he d i sm i ssal of h i s federal cl ai m s. C . D eni al of

M ot i on t o A m end C ompl ai nt T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed D opp’ s m ot i on t o amend bas ed on the pr ocedur al pos tur e of the ca s e, i n par t i cul ar , the fa ctthe St at e D efe ndant s had fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s bas ed on the cl ai m s i n the or i gi nal compl ai ntand r es ol ut i on of that m oti on w ou l d b e delay ed if D op p w ere al l ow ed to am end his com plai nt. Ital so n o ted a n ya d d iti o n a l fa c tu a l o r le g a l ar g u m e n ts re lev a n t to D o p p ’s c laim s c o u ld be as s er t ed i n s uppl ement al pl eadi ngs r es pons i ve t o the St at e D efe ndant s ’ pendi ng m o tio n fo r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t r a th e r t h a n in a n a m e n d e d c o m p la in t. D o p p a rg u e s th e c o u rt e rr e d in d e n y in g h im le a v e to a m e n d h is c o m p la in t. H e c laim s h e tim e lya ttem p ted to a m e n d h is c o m p lain t to c o n fo rm to th e n e w ly di s cover ed i nform at i on cont ai ned i n the M ar t i nez r eportand t o add an a l l egat i on t hatanys t at e pos t - depr i vat i on r emedyw oul d be i nadequa t e forhi m t o chal l enge t he l os s of hi s cas h. W e r evi ew t he deni al of l eave t o amend a compl ai ntforan abus e of d is c re tio n . G r os s m an v. Novel l , Inc. , 1 2 0 F .3 d 1 1 1 2 , 1 1 2 6 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). R u le-16-

1 5 (a ) o f th e F e d e ra l R u les o f

C iv il P ro c e d u re p ro v id e s th a t lea v e o f c o u rt to amend a compl ai nt“s hal l be fr eel ygi ven w hen j us t i ce s o r equi r es . ” “Refus i ng l eave t o amend i s gener al l yonl yj us t i fi ed upon a s how i ng of undue de l ay , undue p rejud ice to the o p p o sing p arty , b ad fa ith o r dil atorym o ti v e, fa il u re to c u re defi ci enci es byamendm ent s pr evi ous l yal l ow ed, orfut i l i tyof amendm ent . ” F rank v. U . S. Wes t, Inc. , 3 F .3 d 1 3 5 7 , 1 3 6 5 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). T h e d istric t co u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n . D o p p so u g h t to a m e n d h is com plai nt t o co nfo rm t o the subsequ ent pl eadings and evident i arym at eri al s, par t i cul ar l y , t he M ar t i nez re p o rt, an d to a ss ist th e d e fe n d a n ts a n d th e c o u rt in res po nd i ng t o an d resol ving his cl ai m s bybeing m ore speci fi c as t o d at es, in c id e n ts, a n d p e rso n s in v o lv e d . H o w e v e r, th e re q u e st to a m e n d c a m e a lm o st a y earaft ert he M ar t i nez r epor tw as fi l ed. M or eover , the courtpr ovi ded D opp an oppor tuni t yt o cl ar i fyanyfac t s i n s uppl ement al pl eadi ngs . L as t l y , w e r ej ect D opp’ s cl ai m t hatan amendm entw oul d have c ur ed the def i ci enci es the courtl at er u se d to d ism iss h is c o m p lain t, sp e c ifica lly , h is fa ilu re to a lleg e O k lah o m a ’s p o stdepr i vat i on r emedi es w er e unava i l abl e, unr es pons i ve ori nadequa t e t o r emedyt he lo s s o f h is c a s h . B a s e d o n o u r d is p o s itio n a b o v e , i . e. , D opp cannots t at e a due pr oces s cl ai m bas ed on the negl i gentdepr i vat i on of hi s cas h, anyamendm ent w oul d have be en fut i l e. I I I . C oncl usi on W e A F F IR M t he d i stri ctcou rt ’s dis m i ssal of D op p’s com plai nt agai nstS ect i on 19 15 (g) provides: 11 I n no events hal l a pr i s onerbr i ng a ci vi l act i on orappea l a j udgm enti n a ci vi l act i on orpr ocee di ng undert hi s s ect i on i f the pr i s onerhas , on 3 or m or e pr i orocca s i ons , w hi l e i ncar cer at ed ordet ai ned i n anyfac i l i ty , br ought an ac t i on orappea l i n a courtof the U ni t ed St at es t hatw as di s m i s s ed on the gr ounds t hati ti s fr i vol ous , m al i ci ous , orfai l s t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef maybe gr ant ed, unl es s t he pr i s oneri s underi m m i nentdangerof s e r i o u s p h ys i c a l i nj u r y. -17- D efe ndantG arnerpur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) . D opp has acc um ul at ed tw o s tr i kes i n t hi s m at t er– one forthe di s m i s s al of thi s appea l and o n e fo r t h e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d is m is s a l. See 28 U . S . C . § 19 15 (g) . W e al so 11 A F F IR M th e c o u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t to th e S tate D e fe n d a n ts. D o p p is r emi nded t o cont i nue maki ng part i al paym ent s of hi s appel l at e fi l i ng fee unt i l t he ent i r e bal ance i s pai d. FOR TH E CO UR T: T err ence L . O ’ B r i en U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge