Gilliam v. Hodges et al
ORDER ADOPTING in part 5 the proposed findings and recommended disposition; dismissing Gilliam's complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may granted, however, the dismissal will not count as a "strike" for the purposes of 28 U.C.C. § 1915(g). Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 1/7/2015. (kdr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
ALONZO GILLIAM, III
CASE NO: 4:14CV00545 BSM
NORMAN L. HODGES, JR., et al.
On December 3, 2014, a hearing was conducted on plaintiff Alonzo Gilliam’s
objections to the recommended disposition filed by United States Magistrate Judge H. David
Young. Gilliam is suing members of the Arkansas State Claims Commission, claiming they
wrongfully dismissed his complaint to recover misplaced items taken from him during his
incarceration in the Arkansas Department of Correction. It appears that Gilliam simply
wants his property back.
Although Gilliam appeared very sincere, his case must be dismissed because the law
does not allow his case to proceed, nor does it permit the relief he seeks. What makes this
dismissal difficult, however, is that it appears the Claims Commission may have simply
dismissed Gilliam’s claims out of hand, without giving him proper consideration. As noted
in the recommended disposition, however, Gilliam cannot re-litigate his Claims Commission
case here. See Steffen v. Housewright, 665 F.2d 245, 246–47 (8th Cir. 1981).
Accordingly, the proposed findings and recommended disposition are hereby adopted
in part. Gilliam’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, however, the dismissal will not count as a “strike” for the
purposes of 28 U.C.C. § 1915(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of January 2015.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?