Case Name: Bennie L. COLLINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LUBBOCK POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-24
Citations: 191 F. App'x 312
Docket Number: No. 05-10814
Parties: Bennie L. COLLINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LUBBOCK POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before GARWOOD, CLEMENT and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 191
Pages: 312–312

Head Matter:
Bennie L. COLLINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LUBBOCK POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 05-10814
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 24, 2006.
Bennie L. Collins, Lubbock, TX, pro se.
Before GARWOOD, CLEMENT and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Bennie L. Collins, Texas prisoner # 1316764, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit as frivolous and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A. The district court dismissed the complaint on the basis that, pursuant to Parrott v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981), and Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984), a section 1983 claim may not be brought for the random and unauthorized confiscation of property by a state actor if the state provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. However, in light of Davis v. Bayless, 70 F.3d 367, 375 (5th Cir.1995), we are constrained to conclude that the district court erred. Collins's contention that his money (cash) was confiscated when he was pulled over and arrested set forth, albeit obliquely and inartfully, a Fourth Amendment substantive due process claim rather than a procedural due process claim that would be barred by Parratt/Hudson. See id. See also Augustine v. Doe, 740 F.2d 322, 325-27 (5th Cir.1984).
We express no opinion on the ultimate merits of Collins' claim or whether there may be some other appropriate basis to dismiss Collins's suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) or 1915A.
VACATED and REMANDED.
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 R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.