Brock v. Godfree

Filing 10

ORDER; Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on November 3, 2016. (hnc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
JOHNNY BROCK
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 2:16-CV-02046-PKH-MEF

MIKE GODFREE (Polk
County Sheriff)

DEFENDANT

ORDER
This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court has the obligation to screen any complaint
in which an individual has sought leave to proceed IFP. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). On review, the
Court is to dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous, malicious, or
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his complaint on March 2, 2016, in the Eastern District of Arkansas. (Doc.

2). The case was properly transferred to this District on March 4, 2016. (Doc. 3). Plaintiff is
currently incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) Grimes Unit. He alleges
the Polk County Sheriff’s Department took $4,500.00 in cash without reason or legal right. (Doc.
2, p. 4).
Plaintiff proceeds against Defendant in his official and personal capacity. (Doc. 2, p. 2).
Plaintiff seeks the return of his $4,500.00. (Doc. 2, p. 5).

1

II.

ANALYSIS
Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim under § 1983 for the loss of his money. See

Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S. Ct. 3194, 82 L. Ed. 2d 393 (1984) (intentional
deprivation of property does not violate due process when meaningful post-deprivation remedy is
available); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 1994) (negligent or intentional deprivation
of prisoner's property fails to state claim under § 1983 if state has adequate post-deprivation
remedy); Elliot v. Hurst, 307 Ark. 134, 817 S.W.2d 877, 880 (1991) (cause of action for
conversion lies where distinct act of dominion is exerted over property in denial of owner's
right). Accordingly, because Plaintiff could seek redress in Arkansas state courts for his claim of
lost property, he has no claim pursuant to § 1983 in this regard.
For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
Judgment will be entered accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of November, 2016.

/s/P. K. Holmes, III
P. K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

2