Jeremy Floyd v. U.S. Marshals , 486 F. App'x 623 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 12-1103
    ___________________________
    Jeremy W. Floyd
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
    v.
    U.S. Marshals, on Duty of Day of Incident: Listed as John Doe 1 thru 7. Until
    Discovery Reveals their Identity.; Kathy Hollenbeck
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau
    ____________
    Submitted: August 21, 2012
    Filed: September 11, 2012
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Federal inmate Jeremy Floyd challenges the district court’s with-prejudice
    dismissal, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), of his
    pro se complaint. Floyd claimed that defendants, all federal employees, deprived him
    of his personal property, in violation of his Fifth Amendment due process rights,
    when he was directed to turn over his personal property to defendant Kathy
    Hollenbeck upon his arrest, and certain jewelry that he relinquished was never
    returned to him or his family. He requested return of his property or damages.
    After careful review, see Carlson v. Wiggins, 
    675 F.3d 1134
    , 1138 (8th Cir.
    2012); Great Rivers Habitat Alliance v. FEMA, 
    615 F.3d 985
    , 988 (8th Cir. 2010),
    we agree with the district court that, because Floyd sued defendants in their official
    capacities only, sovereign immunity bars his claims for damages, see Baker v.
    Chisom, 
    501 F.3d 920
    , 923, 925 (8th Cir. 2007) (if complaint is silent as to capacity
    in which defendants are sued, court interprets complaint as including only
    official-capacity claims); Hagemeier v. Block, 
    806 F.2d 197
    , 202 (8th Cir. 1986)
    (sovereign immunity bars claims against federal officials in their official capacities
    unless immunity is waived).
    However, liberally construed, we believe that the complaint successfully
    alleged a claim under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), which allows a
    person aggrieved by deprivation of property to move for the property’s return, so long
    as that person is entitled to lawful possession of the property. See Whitson v. Stone
    Cnty. Jail, 
    602 F.3d 920
    , 922 n.1 (8th Cir. 2010) (courts must construe pro se
    complaints liberally); Jackson v. United States, 
    526 F.3d 394
    , 396-97 (8th Cir. 2008)
    (to succeed on Rule 41(g) motion, movant must show lawful possession, which is
    often satisfied by showing property was seized from movant’s possession); cf. United
    States v. Machado, 
    465 F.3d 1301
    , 1307 (11th Cir. 2006) (when property owner
    invokes Rule 41(g) after close of all criminal proceedings, court treats motion for
    return of property as civil action in equity).
    Therefore, we reverse in part and remand for further consideration of Floyd’s
    Rule 41(g) motion for return of his property. In all other respects, we affirm.
    ______________________________
    -2-