Charles Winston v. Danny Burl, et al


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Lavenski R. Smith, Raymond W. Gruender and Duane Benton (UNPUBLISHED) [4254958] [14-2925]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-2925 ___________________________ Charles A. Winston lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Danny Burl, Warden, East Arkansas Regional Unit; Todd Ball, Deputy Warden of Security, East Arkansas Regional Unit; Dexter Payne, Deputy Warden of Operation, East Arkansas Regional Unit; Walton, Mailroom Supervisor, East Arkansas Regional Unit; Barbara Ester, Estate of Barbara Ester, deceased, Property Supervisor, East Arkansas Regional Unit; Lynette Dickerson, Property Supervisor, East Arkansas Regional Unit lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena ____________ Submitted: March 11, 2015 Filed: March 17, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, GRUENDER, BENTON Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Appellate Case: 14-2925 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/17/2015 Entry ID: 4254958 Arkansas prisoner Charles Winston appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging defendants wrongfully destroyed his property and retaliated against him for filing grievances. After careful review of the record, we affirm. Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (de novo review of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A dismissal); Fullington v. Pfizer, Inc., 720 F.3d 739, 747 (8th Cir. 2013) (court of appeals may affirm on any basis supported by record). The district court correctly decided that Winston failed to state a procedural due process claim based on the destruction of his property because Arkansas provided an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (unauthorized deprivation of property does not constitute violation of procedural due process if meaningful post-deprivation remedy is available); Willis Smith & Co., Inc. v. Arkansas, 548 F.3d 638, 640 (8th Cir. 2008) (Arkansas provides adequate postdeprivation remedy for property claims through Arkansas State Claims Commission). Additionally, the statute of limitations barred any claims based on conduct that occurred before December 30, 2010, see Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736, 739 (8th Cir. 2001) (Arkansas 3-year statute of limitations for personal injuries applies to § 1983 claims), and, to the extent the complaint raised timely claims against Lynette Dickerson based on retaliation, denial of access to the courts, or violations of prison policies, remand is unnecessary because the allegations failed to state a claim, see Atkinson v. Bohn, 91 F.3d 1127, 1129 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to infer retaliatory animus to state retaliation claim); Hartsfield v. Nichols, 511 F.3d 826, 831-32 (8th Cir. 2008) (denial of access to courts claim must be supported by showing actual injury, i.e., that non-frivolous legal claim was frustrated or impeded); Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430-31 (8th Cir. 1997) (violating prison policy does not give rise to § 1983 claim). Therefore, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 14-2925 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/17/2015 Entry ID: 4254958

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?