Court Opinion

ID: 9894727
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-02 18:00:32.92045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:27.186250
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50018         Document: 00516953659             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/02/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-50018
                                     Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                     ____________                              November 2, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Clint Harrison Eller,                                                              Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   CO Gary W. Cole; Pamela G. Taylor; Lt. FNU Simmons;
   Ginger Campos; Michael Alsobrook,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 6:22-CV-857
                      ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Southwick, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, Clint Harrison Eller, Texas
   prisoner # 2159361, challenges the sua sponte dismissal of his complaint,
   under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
   Eller asserts he suffered an unconstitutional deprivation of property when

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50018        Document: 00516953659         Page: 2    Date Filed: 11/02/2023

                                     No. 23-50018

   defendants failed to properly secure his possessions during his
   hospitalization.
          The dismissal is reviewed de novo, applying the same standard
   applicable to dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
   (failure to state claim). E.g., Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 733–34 (5th Cir.
   1998). A complaint fails to state a claim when it does not contain “sufficient
   factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on
   its face”. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted). Pro
   se filings are construed liberally. E.g., Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 400 (5th
   Cir. 2021).
          The Parratt/Hudson doctrine precludes Eller from pursuing his
   deprivation of property claim under § 1983. See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S.
   541, 541–44 (1981), overruled in part by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330–
   31 (1986); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984).             “Under the
   Parratt/Hudson doctrine, a deprivation of a constitutionally protected
   property interest caused by a state employee’s random, unauthorized
   conduct does not give rise to a § 1983 procedural due process claim, unless
   the State fails to provide an adequate postdeprivation remedy.” Allen v.
   Thomas, 388 F.3d 147, 149 (5th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). Eller’s
   complaint alleged the deprivation of his property was random and
   unauthorized by applicable prison procedure. The Texas tort of conversion
   provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy to prisoners claiming due-
   process violations based on deprivation of their property. E.g., Murphy v.
   Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 543–44 (5th Cir. 1994). Eller also fails to state a claim
   under § 1983 that the defendant supervisor is liable under a supervisory-
   liability theory. See Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 303–04 (5th Cir. 1987)
   (“Under [§] 1983, supervisory officials are not liable for the actions of
   subordinates on any theory of vicarious liability.”).
          AFFIRMED.

                                          2