UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ KEITH FRAZIER, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. P. FLORES, 2 Unit Manager, CCCF; INFANTE, Case Manager, CCCF; JANSSEN, Correctional Officer; CARDENIAS, Sergeant, CCCF; FRY, Case Manager, CCCF: M. MILLER, Warden, CCCF. Defendants - Appellees. No. 15-1237 (D.C. No. 1:14-CV -02600-CMA-MJW) (D. Colo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before KELLY , LUCERO , and McHUGH , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Keith Frazier appeals the dist rict court’s dismissal of hi s civil rights complaint. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### January 4, 2016
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 I During the events relevant to this case, Frazier was an inmate at the Crowley Correctional Facility. In tw o separate searches, one in October 2013 and a second in May 2014, prison officials seized a number of items from Frazier’s cell. Frazier alleges that these seizures violated his due process and equal protection rights, and were undertaken in retaliation for his prio r exercise of First Amendment rights. Pursuant to its screeni ng function under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the district court dismissed Frazier’s due pr ocess and equal protection claims as frivolous. A magistrate judge recommended that Frazier’s retaliation cl aim against Paul Flores, a unit manager at the correctional facility, be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The district court adopted that recommenda tion. Frazier timely appealed.
II We review de novo the district cour t’s decision to dism iss a complaint as frivolous under § 1915A(b) if the dismissal is based on a legal issue. See Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252, 1259 (10th Cir. 2006). We appl y the same standard in reviewing a dismissal for failure to state a claim. Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2007). A complaint must allege “enough facts to st ate a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Co rp. v. Twombly, 550 U. S. 544, 570 (2007). Because Frazier is proceeding pro se, we c onstrue his filings li berally. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Frazier alleges that his due process ri ghts were violated when his property was seized. We agree with the district court that this due proce ss clam fails because3 Frazier did not allege the absence of an ad equate state remedy. “[N]either negligent nor intentional deprivations of property u nder color of state law that are random and unauthorized give rise to a § 1983 claim wh ere the plaintiff has an adequate state remedy . . . .” Gillihan v. Shillinger, 872 F.2d 935, 939 (10th Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds by Clark v. Wilson, 625 F.3d 686, 691 (10th Cir. 2010). Frazier asserts that prison officials had a de fact o policy of unlawfully seizing property and thus the existence of state re medies is immaterial. Howeve r, as we noted in a prior appeal filed by Frazier, “individual corre ctional officers’ alleged practice of arbitrarily seizing inmates’ property with scant justifi cation is not the type of ‘established state procedure’ ” that requires a pre-depriva tion hearing. Frazier v. Flores, 571 F. App’x 673, 676 (10th Cir. 2014) (unpub lished) (quoting Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 541 (1981)). With respect to the equal protection clai m, Frazier’s sole ar gument is that the district court erred in fail ing to provide him an opport unity to amend. However, Frazier does not direct us to any district court filing, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 or otherwise, in which he sought leave to amend. Having failed to request permission to amend, Frazier cannot now complain that the district court denied a non-existent request. See Brannon v. Boat men’s First Nat’l Bank, 153 F. 3d 1144, 1150 (10th Cir. 1998) (failure to attempt an am endment at the trial level waiv es the issue on appeal). Lastly, we affirm the district court’s ruling that Frazier fa iled to state a First Amendment retaliation claim. “An inmate claiming retalia tion must allege specific facts showing retaliation becau se of the exercise of [h is] constitutional rights.”4 Peterson v. Shanks, 149 F.3d 1140, 1144 (10th Cir. 1998). And a plaintiff must show “that but for the retaliatory motive, the inci dents to which he re fers . . . would not have taken place.” Id. (quot ation omitted). Frazier’s co mplaint contained very few allegations of personal particip ation by Flores in the alleged retaliation. See Foote v. Spiegel, 118 F.3d 1416, 1423 (10th Cir. 1997) (“Individual liability under § 1983 must be based on personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation.”). And Frazier failed to allege particular f acts suggesting these ac tions would not have occurred but for Frazier’s protected activity.
III For the foregoing reasons, the judg ment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. Frazier’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED , but we remind him of his obligation to continue maki ng partial payments until the fe e has been paid in full.

Entered for the Court

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge