IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-11238

Summary Calendar

PAUL RAY JACKSON, also known as Paul R. Jackson, also known as James

Johnson,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

M. MAES; D. INGLE; J. WHEAT,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:09-CV-207

Before DAVIS, SMITH and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Paul Ray Jackson, Texas prisoner # 614451, appeals from the dismissal of

his in forma pauperis (IFP) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights suit claiming that the

named defendant prison employees destroyed his personal property; the district

court dismissed the suit as frivolous. He argues that the evidence will show that

the defendants intentionally destroyed the property in question.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 09-11238 Document: 00511210826 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/20/2010
No. 09-11238

We review the dismissal as frivolous for an abuse of discretion. See Norton

v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 291 (5th Cir. 1997; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and

1915A(b)(1). To the extent that Jackson may have raised claims based upon

negligence or failure to comply with prison procedures in his complaint, he has

abandoned them on appeal. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff

Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). He does not argue that the district

court erred by finding (1) that the defendants’ actions, at most, constituted a

random and unauthorized deprivation or (2) that the Texas tort of conversion

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

517, 533 (1984); Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 541-44 (1981), overruled in part

on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31 (1986); Murphy

v. Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 543-44 (5th Cir. 1994). The Parratt/Hudson doctrine

applies even when a prisoner alleges that the deprivation of property by prison

officials was intentional. Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533. Accordingly, Jackson’s suit

is foreclosed by the Parratt/Hudson doctrine, and the district court did not

abuse its discretion by dismissing it as frivolous.

Jackson’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard

v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). The district court’s dismissal of his

complaint and this court’s dismissal of this appeal as frivolous combined count

as two strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons,

103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Jackson is cautioned that if he accumulates

three strikes, he will no longer be allowed to proceed IFP in any civil action or

appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is

under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

Jackson’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED, and his appeal

is DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

Case: 09-11238 Document: 00511210826 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/20/2010