[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 12

- 13515 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 3:12

- cv - 00280

- RBD

- MCR

IRA C. JACKSON, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus LYNN HILL, Assistant Warden, L. CREWS, Warden, Secretary, Grievance Coordinator, SGT. HALE, PENDLETON, Lieutenant, W ARDEN, Defendants

- Appellees, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, etc., et al. Defendants.

Case: 12-13515 Date Filed: 06/16/2014 Page: 1 of 52 ________________________ Appeal from the United States Distr ict Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ (June 16, 2014) Before TJOFLAT , PRYOR and JORDAN , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Ira C. Jackson, a Florida prisoner , appeals pro se the dismissal without prejudice of his second amended complaint that o fficials at the Putnam Correctional Institution violated his civil rights

. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Jackson complained that the officials dispose d of his personal property, in violation of his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment , and he suffered “undue emotional and physical stress” when officers retaliated against him by disciplining
him for filin g grievances, in violation of the First Amendment . The district court sua sponte dismissed Jackson’s complaint as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1 915(e)(2)(B)(i). The district court ruled that Jackson’s c ompl ai nt about his property was “not cognizable [because he had] an adequate means of redressing that violation . . . under state law” and that his claim about retaliation was barred under the Pris on Litigation Reform Act because he sough t compensatory and punitive damages for mental and emotional injuries , not physical injuries , s ee 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e)

. We affirm the dismissal of Jackson’s claim about the disposal

Case: 12-13515 Date Filed: 06/16/2014 Page: 2 of 53 of his property . We also affirm in part the dismissal of Jackson’s c omplaint for compensatory and punitive damages , but vacate and remand for the district court to consider whether Jackson c an recover nominal damages for his claim of retaliation

. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed as frivolous Jackson’s c l ai m about the destruction of his property. Jackson alleged that officials denied him access to personal property shipp ed t o Putnam; refused to mail the property to another location; and later denied having Jackson’s property. Jackson cannot claim that he has been deprived of due process when he has available an adequate postdeprivation remedy under state law

. See Hudson v. Palmer , 468 U.S. 517, 533 , 104 S. Ct. 3194 , 3204 ( 1984 ); Parratt v. Taylor , 451 U.S. 527, 101 S. Ct. 1908 (1981)

. Under Florida law, Jackson can sue t he officers for the conversion of his personal property. See Case v. Eslinger , 555 F.3d 1317 , 1331 ( 11 th Cir. 2009 ) ( citing E.J. Strickland Constr., Inc. v. Dep’ t of Agric. & Consumer Servs. of Fla. , 515 So. 2d 1331, 1335 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987) )

. The district court also did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed
Jackson’s c laim for damages for emotional and physical stress alleged ly caused by the officials’ retaliation. Jackson alleged that he suffered “anxiety [and] fear of physical harm” because the officials “restrained and confined [ him ] in solitary confinement . . . [and] expos[ed] [him] t o an undue psychological screening and evaluation , ” but Jackson wa s barred from recover ing damages for mental or

Case: 12-13515 Date Filed: 06/16/2014 Page: 3 of 54 emotional injuries. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e); Napier v. Preslicka , 314 F.3d 528,
531

– 32 (11th Cir. 2002) . Jackson also alleged that the officials’ retaliation caused him “sleepless night s ” and that he “exhibit[ed] a hunger strike , ” but he did n o t alleg e that his health was affected or that he suffered in a ny way that w ould qualify as a physical injury under section 1997e(e)

. See Mitchell v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. , 294 F.3d 1309, 1312

– 13 (11th Cir. 2002) (“[T] o avoid dismissal under § 1997e(e), a prisoner ’ s claims for emotional or mental injury must be accompanied by allegations of physical injuries that are greater than de minimi s.” )

. The district court erroneously failed to consider whether Jackson was entitled to nominal damages for his claim about being disciplined in retaliation for filing grievances

. Based on the liberal construction given pro se pleadings , see Tannenbaum v. United States , 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998), the district court should have considered whether Jackson could recover nominal damages despite his failure to request that relief , see Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c). Nominal damages are not precluded by the Act , Smith v. Allen , 502 F.3d 1255, 1266 (11th Cir. 2007), abrogated on other grounds , Sossamon v. Texas , 564 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 1651, 1657

– 60 (2011) , and “are appropriate if a plaintiff establishes a violation of a fundamental constitutional right, even if he cannot prove [an] actual injury sufficient to entitle him to compensatory damages , ” Hughes v. Lott , 350 F.3d 1157, 1162 (11th Cir. 2003)

. Jackson alleg ed that officials disciplined him for filing

Case: 12-13515 Date Filed: 06/16/2014 Page: 4 of 55 grievance s by “search[ing] [his] person and locker , ” plac ing him in solitary confi nement , and subjecting him to unnecessary psychological testing

. T h ese allegations s tate a claim for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, see Wildberger v. Bracknell , 869 F.2d 1467 , 1468 ( 11 th Cir

. 1989 ) (citing U.S. Const. amend. I), for which Jackson could recover nominal damages, see Pelphrey v. Cobb Cnty., Ga. , 547 F.3d 1263 , 1282 ( 11 th Cir

. 2008 ). W e remand for the district court to consider whether Jackson may be en titled to nominal damages for his complaint of retaliation

. See Hughes , 350 F.3d at 11 62

– 63.
We AFFIRM in part the dismissal of Jackson’s c omplaint and VACATE
and REMAND in part for the district court to consider whether Jackson can recover nominal damages for his claim that he was disciplined in retaliation for filing grievances. AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART. Case: 12-13515 Date Filed: 06/16/2014 Page: 5 of 5