Filed: Aug. 21, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 19-1376 _ Raphael Mendez lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Bryan Meek, Correctional Officer; Lt. Holbus, Correctional Officer; Lt. Sladek, Correctional Officer; Ms. Whiplinger, Correctional Officer; Ms. G. Balas, Unit Disciplinary Officer; T. Muller, Unit Disciplinary Officer; Warden David Paul, et al. lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees _ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota _ Submi
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 19-1376 _ Raphael Mendez lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Bryan Meek, Correctional Officer; Lt. Holbus, Correctional Officer; Lt. Sladek, Correctional Officer; Ms. Whiplinger, Correctional Officer; Ms. G. Balas, Unit Disciplinary Officer; T. Muller, Unit Disciplinary Officer; Warden David Paul, et al. lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees _ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota _ Submit..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 19-1376
___________________________
Raphael Mendez
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Bryan Meek, Correctional Officer; Lt. Holbus, Correctional Officer; Lt. Sladek,
Correctional Officer; Ms. Whiplinger, Correctional Officer; Ms. G. Balas, Unit
Disciplinary Officer; T. Muller, Unit Disciplinary Officer; Warden David Paul, et al.
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: August 9, 2019
Filed: August 21, 2019
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Federal civil detainee Raphael Mendez appeals after the district court1
dismissed his pro se civil rights complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
He challenges the dismissal of his claim asserting that confiscation of his property
violated his due process rights.
Upon careful review of the record and Mendez’s arguments on appeal, we
conclude that the dismissal was proper. See Hudson v. Palmer,
468 U.S. 517, 533
(1984) (unauthorized deprivation of property by government official does not violate
procedural due process unless suitable post-deprivation remedy is unavailable); see
also 28 C.F.R. § 542.10-.19 (setting forth Bureau of Prison’s administrative remedy
procedures); Moore v. Sims,
200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam)
(de novo review of § 1915(e)(2)(B) dismissal); cf. Gardner v. Howard,
109 F.3d 427,
430 (8th Cir. 1997) (there is no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based only on prison
official’s violation of prison policy). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
1
The Honorable Eric C. Tostrud, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Hildy
Bowbeer, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
-2-