UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

ARNOLD ANTHONY CARY, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN BERRY GOODRICH; C.O. 

MICHAEL ROMERO, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 20-1112

(D.C. No. 1:19-CV-03690-LTB-GPG)

(D. Colo.)

_________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________

Before MATHESON, KELLY, and EID, Circuit Judges.**

_________________________________

Pro se1 plaintiff-appellant Arnold Cary filed a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 

alleging that his due process rights were violated when his property was seized by 

prison officials. The district court dismissed Cary’s claim as legally frivolous under 

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines 

of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for 

its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. ** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially 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.

1 Because Cary is proceeding pro se, we liberally construe his filings. United 

States v. Pinson, 584 F.3d 972, 975 (10th Cir. 2009). That said, liberally construing 

a pro se filing does not include supplying additional factual allegations or 

constructing a legal theory on the appellant’s behalf. Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 

F.3d 1170, 1173–74 (10th Cir. 1997).

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 6, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court
2

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). We affirm and grant Cary’s motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis. 

I.

Cary is a state inmate held by the Colorado Department of Corrections 

(“CDOC”). In July 2019, he was transferred from Fremont Correctional Facility to 

Crowley County Correctional Facility. Following Cary’s transfer, prison officials

allegedly seized eight of his legal books and have not returned them. Cary asserts 

that he was required to mail the books to a recipient outside the facility, but that 

recipient never received them. 

Consequently, Cary filed a claim in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, alleging that his due process rights had been violated.2

 Cary was granted 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but the district court dismissed his action as 

legally frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

3

 

II.

When a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, § 1915(e) requires the court to 

dismiss the claim if the action “is frivolous or malicious.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B). A complaint is “frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in 

law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). “We review the 

2 Cary’s complaint also mentioned the First Amendment and the Equal 

Protection Clause, but the district court held that Cary’s “vague and conclusory 

references” to these rights were insufficient “to state an arguable constitutional 

claim.” ROA at 50. Cary does not challenge this ruling on appeal. 3 The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation. 
3

district court’s § 1915(e) dismissal for an abuse of discretion.” McWilliams v. State 

of Colorado, 121 F.3d 573, 574–75 (10th Cir. 1997). 

III.

Cary appears to advance three arguments on appeal: (1) the district court erred 

by dismissing his due process claim as legally frivolous; (2) the district court showed 

judicial bias; and (3) he was denied access to the courts.

A.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Cary’s due process

claim as legally frivolous. “We examine procedural due process questions in two 

steps: the first asks whether there exists a liberty or property interest which has been 

interfered with by the State; the second examines whether the procedures attendant 

upon that deprivation were constitutionally sufficient.” Kentucky Dep’t of Corr. v. 

Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460 (1989) (citations omitted). 

Even if we assume that Cary was deprived of a constitutionally protected 

property interest in his legal books, his claim fails because he cannot establish that 

the procedures accompanying the deprivation of his property were constitutionally 

insufficient. The procedural requirements of due process are not violated where the 

deprivation of property is “random and unauthorized” and “the plaintiff has an 

adequate [post-deprivation] state remedy.” Gillihan v. Shillinger, 872 F.2d 935, 939 

(10th Cir. 1989) (citing Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (“[A]n 

unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does not 

constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause . . . if 
4

a meaningful postdeprivation remedy . . . is available.”)), overruled on other grounds 

by Clark v. Wilson, 625 F.3d 686, 691 (10th Cir. 2010).

Here, the district court properly dismissed Cary’s due process claim because 

(1) the deprivation of his property was unauthorized and (2) he has an adequate postdeprivation state remedy. 

First, the seizure of Cary’s books was unauthorized and was not the result of 

“some established state policy, procedure, or custom.” Gillihan, 872 F.2d at 939. 

The Supreme Court has explained that in such cases, a pre-deprivation hearing is not 

required because “[t]he loss of property, although attributable to the State as action 

under ‘color of law,’ is in almost all cases beyond the control of the State.” Parratt 

v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 541 (1981), overruled on other grounds by Daniels v. 

Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330–31 (1986). Cary does not allege that the seizure of his 

legal books was due to any established state policy. To the contrary, he has asserted 

that his possession of the legal books was authorized by CDOC policy. ROA at 45. 

Second, Cary has an adequate post-deprivation state remedy. The CDOC 

allows inmates to seek “restoration of or restitution for property” by filing a formal 

grievance, CDOC Admin. Reg. 850-4, and Cary has not established that he exhausted 

this remedy. See Hudson, 468 U.S. at 536 n.15 (noting that a state inmate grievance 

procedure is a potential source of relief for an inmate alleging a violation of his due 

process rights in connection with the alleged destruction of his property). Cary also 

has not provided any reason why this inmate grievance procedure was either 

inadequate or unavailable. Additionally, Cary has an adequate post-deprivation 
5

remedy in state court because Colorado state employees are not “immune from 

liability” for tortious actions that are “willful and wanton.” See Colo. Rev. Stat. 

§ 24-10-118; Martinez v. Estate of Bleck, 379 P.3d 315, 317 (Colo. 2016). Again, 

Cary neither exhausted this remedy nor alleged that it was inadequate or unavailable. 

See Durre v. Dempsey, 869 F.2d 543, 548 (10th Cir. 1989).

Thus, because the deprivation of Cary’s property was unauthorized and he has 

adequate state post-deprivation remedies, the district court properly dismissed his 

§ 1983 due process claim.

B.

Cary also argues that the judges below showed judicial bias and that their “fact 

finding procedure violates the Constitution and is inadequate for ascertainment of 

truth.” Aplt. Br. at 4–5. This argument fails, however, because Cary did not cite any 

facts supporting his conclusion. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 

1991) (holding for pro se litigants that “conclusory allegations without supporting 

factual averments are insufficient to state a claim on which relief can be based”).

C.

Finally, Cary claims that he was denied access to the courts because “[i]t was 

obvious that CDOC instructed [Crowley County Correctional Facility] to restrain 

[his] litigation ability.” Aplt. Br. at 5–6. But Cary again provides no factual support 

for this assertion. Therefore, this argument fails. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. 
6

IV.

For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Cary’s complaint 

as legally frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. We also grant Cary’s motion to proceed 

in forma pauperis and remind him of his obligation under § 1915(b) to make 

payments until the appellate filing fee is paid in full. 

Entered for the Court

Allison H. Eid

Circuit Judge