Cletis Goodman v. Jennifer Stehlik Ladman, et al


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Steven M. Colloton, Pasco M. Bowman and Raymond W. Gruender (UNPUBLISHED); [4375976-2] Denying appellees' motion for imposition of sanctions filed by Mr. Vincent Valentino. [4442171] [16-1176]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-1176 ___________________________ Cletis Goodman lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Sanfford Pollack lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant Jennifer Stehlik Ladman lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee Brody Duncan; State of Nebraska, Seward County Nebraska & Sheriff Department; Thomas R. Johnson; State of Nebraska lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants Seward County, Nebraska; Seward County Sheriff's Office lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha ____________ Submitted: August 24, 2016 Filed: August 29, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Appellate Case: 16-1176 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/29/2016 Entry ID: 4442171 Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Cletis Goodman appeals from the order of the District Court1 dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action that alleged due process violations related to the seizure of his personal property during a criminal investigation. After careful review, we conclude that Goodman could not proceed on a due-process claim because Nebraska law provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (holding “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 . . . if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available”); State v. Agee, 741 N.W.2d 161, 168 (Neb. 2007) (noting in an appeal from an order overruling a motion for the return of property seized in a criminal case “that the government’s disposition . . . of property does not moot a motion for return of the property”); see also Adams v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 813 F.3d 1151, 1154 (8th Cir. 2016) (“We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss.”); Spirtas Co. v. Nautilus Ins. Co., 715 F.3d 667, 670–71 (8th Cir. 2013) (“This court can affirm on any basis supported in the record.”). We affirm the judgment of the District Court and deny the pending motion for sanctions. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. -2Appellate Case: 16-1176 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/29/2016 Entry ID: 4442171

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?