Michael Jones v. Tom Roy, et al

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: DIANA E. MURPHY, MORRIS S. ARNOLD and DUANE BENTON (UNPUBLISHED) [3837042] [11-2517]

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________
No. 11-2517
___________
Michael Jones,
Appellant,
v.
Tom Roy, Commissioner
of Department of Corrections,
Joan Fabian, Former Commissioner
of Corrections, sued in their
individual and official capacities,
Appellees.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Appeal from the United States
District Court for the
District of Minnesota.
[UNPUBLISHED]

___________
Submitted: October 7, 2011
Filed: October 7, 2011
___________
Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 11-2517

Page: 1

Date Filed: 10/07/2011 Entry ID: 3837042

Michael Jones appeals the district court’s1 pre-service dismissal with prejudice
of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, in which he alleged that his personal property had
been confiscated and retained by the Minnesota Department of Corrections without
affording him due process. Upon careful de novo review, this court concludes that
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) was proper. See Moore v. Sims, 200
F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (standard of review).
Specifically, Jones did not state a claim against defendants in their individual
capacities because he did not plead facts suggesting they were personally involved in
the confiscation and deprivation of his property. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.
1937, 1948 (2009) (“a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant,
through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution”). His
claim against defendants in their official capacities failed because Minnesota provides
an adequate post-deprivation remedy that Jones may pursue to obtain possession of
his property. See Hudson v. Palmer, 486 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (unauthorized,
negligent, or intentional deprivation of property by state employee does not violate
Due Process Clause if adequate post-deprivation remedy is available); Storms v.
Schneider, 2011 WL 3426034, at *2 (Minn. App. Aug. 8, 2011) (noting that replevin
action under Minnesota law is “appropriate means to recover possession of personal
property”); see also Swenson v. Holder, 783 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. App. 2010)
(asserting official-capacity claim against Minnesota Commissioner of Department of
Natural Resources for, inter alia, replevin and conversion).
This court also finds the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Jones’s motion to amend his complaint, because Jones never explained how he would
amend his allegations to state a viable claim. See Moore v. Jackson, 123 F.3d 1082,
1089 (8th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (standard of review).
1

The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Leo
I. Brisbois, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
-2-

Appellate Case: 11-2517

Page: 2

Date Filed: 10/07/2011 Entry ID: 3837042

This court affirms. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 11-2517

Page: 3

Date Filed: 10/07/2011 Entry ID: 3837042