Opinion ID: 69646
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Loss of Property

Text: Krause blames the police both for losing valuable possessions from his impounded automobile and for allowing thieves to steal from his trailers during his time in jail. As the district court artfully explained, Krause’s claims are not cognizable under § 1983. As long as the state provides for a meaningful postdeprivation remedy, then no constitutional violation occurs when a state employee negligently or intentionally deprives a prisoner of property.7 “In Texas, as in many other states, the tort of conversion fulfills this requirement.” 8 6 See Anderson v. Galveston County Dist. Clerk, 91 F. App’x 925, 926 (5th Cir. 2004) (“[Claimant] argues that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint as frivolous pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey . . . because his complaint challenged the length of his pre-trial detention and not his conviction. . . . [Claimant’s] complaint, given its most liberal construction, sought damages for the denial of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. A determination that [his] Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated would necessarily implicate the invalidity of his conviction, and [he] has not shown that his conviction has been overturned or otherwise declared invalid.”) (unpublished); Josey v. Tex. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 101 F. App’x 9, 10 (5th Cir. 2004) (“[B]y raising his speedy-trial argument, Josey is contesting his continued confinement.”) (unpublished). 7 See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (“[W]e hold that an unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available.”). 8 Murphy v. Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1994). 5 No. 09-40273