United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 00-1983

________________

Beck, formerly known as David

Wayne Vanderbeck, #154970, in

and on behalf of all other inmates

confined within the Minnesota

Department of Corrections for the

State of Minnesota,

Appellant,

v.

Gothriel LaFleur, sued as Gothriel J.

LaFleur, individually, and as the

Commissioner of Corrections for the

State of Minnesota (MnDOC);

David Crist, individually, and as the

Warden for the Minnesota

Correctional Facility-Stillwater

(MCF-STW); Dan Ferrise,

individually, and as the Executive

Director of Minnesota Correctional

Industries (MinnCor),

Appellees.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

District of Minnesota.

________________

Submitted: February 16, 2001

 Filed: July 16, 2001

________________
1The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable John M.

Mason, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

2

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, LAY, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges. 

________________

HANSEN, Circuit Judge.

Beck, a Minnesota state prisoner, appeals the district court's1 dismissal of his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action against the prison-official defendants. He alleges defendants have

unlawfully taken or deprived him and other inmates of their property, including money

from their prison accounts and their prison wages, for their own personal gain. Upon

the district court's initial screening of the allegations as required by 28 U.S.C. §

1915A(b)(1), the court dismissed Beck's complaint with leave to amend, giving him a

series of directions on how to cure the complaint's defects. Beck subsequently filed an

amended complaint. Upon screening the amended complaint, the district court ruled

that Beck failed to allege a sufficient factual basis to support any claims against

defendants and dismissed the action with prejudice. We affirm. 

We review de novo the district court's dismissal of Beck's amended complaint.

Young v. City of St. Charles, 244 F.3d 623, 627 (8th Cir. 2001). When ruling on a

motion to dismiss, a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in the

complaint and afford the plaintiff all reasonable inferences to be drawn from those

facts. Id. "A case is properly dismissed only if it appears beyond doubt that the

plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to

relief." Broadus v. O.K. Indus., Inc., 226 F.3d 937, 941 (8th Cir. 2000) (internal

quotations omitted). "To establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, [a plaintiff] must

show a deprivation of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or the
3

laws of the United States." Dunham v. Wadley, 195 F.3d 1007, 1009 (8th Cir. 1999),

cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 60 (2000).

Beck suggests on appeal that his amended complaint alleges facts sufficient to

state a constitutional claim that defendants deprived him of property without due

process of law. See Lyon v. Farrier, 730 F.2d 525, 527 (8th Cir. 1984) (noting that

although prisoners retain protections against the deprivation of property without due

process of law, the protection is "subject to reasonable limitation or retraction in light

of the legitimate security concerns of the institution" (internal quotations omitted)).

Beck failed to allege sufficient personal involvement by any of defendants to support

such a claim. See Ellis v. Norris, 179 F.3d 1078, 1079 (8th Cir. 1999) (stating that

prisoner must allege defendants' personal involvement or responsibility for the

constitutional violations to state a § 1983 claim); see also Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d

1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985) ("Although it is to be liberally construed, a pro se complaint

must contain specific facts supporting its conclusions."). The only allegation close to

establishing personal involvement by any of the defendants is Beck's claim that

Commissioner LaFleur and Warden Crist instituted departmental policies that somehow

deprived him of personal property. The amended complaint fails, however, to identify

the specific policies of which he complains or how the defendants were responsible for

taking his property for their own personal gain pursuant to those policies. Beck's

amended complaint also alleges that defendants altered and falsified inmate wage and

tax statements, resulting in various violations of federal law, but fails to allege any

personal loss that would support Beck's right to recover for those alleged violations.

See Martin, 780 F.2d at 1337 ("A prisoner must allege a personal loss."). 

Beck asks us in the alternative to remand the case with instructions to the district

court to modify the dismissal to be without prejudice. Because Beck failed to follow

the district court's detailed and explicit directions on how to cure his initial complaint

and because the substance of his allegations in the amended complaint was nearly
4

identical to his initial complaint, we hold that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate.

We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.