Hutchinson v. Prudhomme , 79 F. App'x 54 ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 22, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-30359
Conference Calendar
ZEBEDEE HUTCHINSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
REBA PRUDHOMME,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 02-CV-2323
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Zebedee Hutchinson (“Hutchinson”), Louisiana state prisoner
#98608, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Hutchinson argues that prison
personnel mishandled and embezzled funds deposited in his inmate
account. We review a dismissal for failure to state a claim de
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-30359
-2-
novo. See Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 718 & n.3 (5th Cir.
1999).
Hutchinson has failed to establish a due process claim
because a post-deprivation tort cause of action in state law is
sufficient to satisfy the requirements of due process. See
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); Caine v. Hardy, 943
F.2d 1406, 1413 (5th Cir. 1991)(en banc). Louisiana provides an
adequate post-deprivation remedy for property loss claims. See
Marshall v. Norwood, 741 F.2d 761, 763-64 (5th Cir. 1984); LA.
CIV. CODE ANN. art. 2315 (West 2002).
Hutchinson’s appeal is without arguable merit and is
dismissed as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). The dismissal of the
appeal as frivolous and the district court’s dismissal of
Hutchinson’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and for
failure to state a claim each count as a “strike” under the
three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.
Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Hutchinson is
CAUTIONED that if he accumulates three “strikes” under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis 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; THREE-STRIKES WARNING ISSUED.