Eugene Pitts v. Larry Jegley, et al

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: DIANA E. MURPHY, PASCO M. BOWMAN and RAYMOND W. GRUENDER (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [3808019-2] motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis filed by Appellant Eugene Issac Pitts. [3847035] [11-2306]

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________
No. 11-2306
___________
Eugene Issac Pitts,

*
*
Appellant,
*
*
v.
*
*
Larry Jegley, Prosecuting Attorney,
*
Pulaski County; W. A. McCormick,
* Appeal from the United States
Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
* District Court for the
Pulaski County; Durthey Bishop,
* Eastern District of Arkansas.
Investigator, Pulaski County; Kermit
*
Channell, Executive Director, Arkansas * [UNPUBLISHED]
State Crime Laboratory; Lisa Channell, *
Trace Evidence Analyst, Arkansas
*
State Crime Lab; Stephanie Gray,
*
Evidence Technician, Arkansas
*
Department of Correction; Jeffrey M. *
Rosenzweig, Attorney, Little Rock
*
Arkansas,
*
*
Appellees.
*
___________
Submitted: November 2, 2011
Filed: November 7, 2011
___________
Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 11-2306

Page: 1

Date Filed: 11/07/2011 Entry ID: 3847035

Eugene Pitts appeals the district court’s1 preservice dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action based on the alleged “bad faith” mishandling and loss of evidence. We
grant Pitts leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Upon de novo review, we
conclude that dismissal was proper because the complaint failed to state a claim. See
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (pleading that offers
labels and conclusions or formulaic recitation of elements will not do; claim has facial
plausibility when plaintiff pleads factual content that allows court to draw reasonable
inference that defendant is liable for misconduct alleged); Daniels v. Williams, 474
U.S. 327, 328 (1986) (Due Process Clause is not implicated by negligent act of official
causing unintended loss of or injury to life, liberty, or property); Holbird v.
Armstrong-Wright, 949 F.2d 1019, 1020 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (conduct of
counsel, either retained or appointed, does not constitute state action for purposes of
§ 1983); see also Phipps v. FDIC, 417 F.3d 1006, 1010 (8th Cir. 2005) (court may
affirm on any basis supported by record). Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________

1

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Arkansas.
-2-

Appellate Case: 11-2306

Page: 2

Date Filed: 11/07/2011 Entry ID: 3847035