eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2005-12

Wilson v. Holt , 158 F. App'x 546 ( 2005 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                         United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                 December 14, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-40121
Conference Calendar
CURTIS LEE WILSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MONA HOLT, Correctional Officer 3; SHERRY DICKENS, Correctional
Officer 3; KATHLEEN J. TABOADA, Correctional Officer 3;
SHERRI L. MILLIGAN, Property Manager; KAREN J. NORMAN,
Correctional Officer 5,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:04-CV-507
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Curtis Lee Wilson, Texas prisoner # 500061, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his pro se, in forma pauperis
(IFP),
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     complaint as frivolous.   Wilson’s
complaint sought the return of personal property and compensation
for damages.   Wilson argues that the district court erred in
concluding his claim was barred.   We review de novo.     See
Alexander v. Ieyoub,
    62 F.3d 709
    , 712 (5th Cir. 1995).
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 05-40121
-2-
“Under the Parratt/Hudson doctrine, a state actor’s random
and unauthorized deprivation of a plaintiff’s property does not
result in a violation of procedural due process rights if the
state provides an adequate postdeprivation remedy.”
    Id.
    (footnote omitted); Parratt v. Taylor,
    451 U.S. 527
    , 541-44
(1981), overruled in part not relevant here, Daniels v. Williams,
    474 U.S. 327
     (1986); Hudson v. Palmer,
    468 U.S. 517
    , 533 (1984).
Texas has an adequate postdeprivation remedy for Wilson’s
asserted loss; thus, Wilson’s claim was not properly raised in a
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action.    See Murphy v. Collins,
    26 F.3d 541
    , 543
(5th Cir. 1994).
Wilson’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.
See Howard v. King,
    707 F.2d 215
    , 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).          As the
appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED.      See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.    The
dismissal of this appeal as frivolous and the district court’s
dismissal as frivolous both count as strikes for purposes of
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (g).    See Adepegba v. Hammons,
    103 F.3d 383
    , 387-88
(5th Cir. 1996).    Wilson is cautioned that if he accumulates
three strikes, he will not be permitted to proceed IFP in any
civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained
in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious
physical injury.    See
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (g).
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.