Scott v. Mask
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 9 Order Dismissing Case. Signed by Judge Neal B. Biggers on 10/19/05. (tab, USDC)
Scott v. Mask
Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI WESTERN DIVISION JOHN SCOTT v. SHERIFF LEO MASK PLAINTIFF No. 3:05CV121-B-B DEFENDANT
This matter comes before the court on the September 26, 2005, pro se prisoner complaint of John Scott, challenging the conditions of his confinement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff, who was convicted on two counts of homicide, alleges that the defendant, Pontotoc County Sheriff Leo Mask, impounded the plaintiff's 1991 Mitsubishi Eclipse to search it for evidence. The Sheriff then returned a 1999 Chevrolet Z71 truck in the plaintiff's possession to the family of one of the plaintiff's victims. The plaintiff claims that he had bought the truck from one of the murder victims and that the plaintiff held an "open title" in his possession at the time of his arrest. State Law Claim At most plaintiff has asserted a state law tort claim of conversion against the defendant. The acts giving rise to a claim for conversion do not constitute a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as the plaintiff has an adequate remedy under state law a common-law suit for conversion in state court. Myers v. Klevenhagen, 97 F.3d 91, 94 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Brooks v. George Co., 84 F.3d 157, 165 (5th Cir. 1996) (emphasis added)); Davis v. Bayless, 70 F.3d 367, 375 (5th Cir. 1995). As such, the instant case shall be dismissed for failure to state a claim
Page 2 of 2
upon which relief could be granted, counting as a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 (e)(2)(B)(i) and 1915(g). A final judgment consistent with this memorandum opinion shall issue today.
SO ORDERED, this the 19th day of October, 2005.
/s/ Neal Biggers NEAL B. BIGGERS SENIOR U. S. 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?