MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

DALE A. KIMBALL, District Judge.

This matter is before the court on Defendant Travis Mitchell's Motion to Dismiss. A hearing on the motion was held on October 24, 2014. At the hearing, Plaintiffs Robert and Virginia Pinder and JJNP Ranches were represented by Trent Waddoups and James D. Garrett. Defendant was represented by Jesse C. Trentadue, Britton R. Butterfield, and Tyler Allred. The court has carefully considered the memoranda and other materials submitted by the parties. Since taking the matter under advisement, the court has further considered the law and facts relating to this motion. Now being fully advised, the court renders the following Memorandum Decision and Order.

This case arises out of the conviction of John Pinder on multiple counts of aggravated murder and the desecration of a human body. Plaintiffs are the parents of John Pinder, and they are among the partners that make up the partnership, JJNP Ranches. Plaintiffs are seeking the return of firearms and gun-related items such as gun cases and ammunition seized as a result of investigative searches concerning the prosecution of John Pinder. They have asserted a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that their property was wrongfully taken and retained by Sheriff Mitchell. Thus, they contend, he has violated their 5th Amendment right and/or he violated their right to due process of law.

Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), 12(b)(7) and 12b(c), Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint, arguing that this court lacks jurisdiction, that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim, that he is entitled to qualified immunity, and that Plaintiffs have failed to name an indispensable party.

A. Jurisdiction

In the instant motion to dismiss, Defendant Mitchell argues that this court has no jurisdiction because Plaintiffs have adequate post-deprivation remedies under Utah State law, which means that this matter is not ripe. See City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes, 526 U.S. 687 (1999) ("a federal court . . . cannot entertain a takings claim under §1983 unless or until the complaining landowner has been denied an adequate post-deprivation remedy."); see also Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (holding that deprivations of property do not constitute Fourteenth Amendment violations if adequate state post-deprivation remedies are available). According to Defendant, Utah Code § 24-3-104 clearly provides Plaintiffs with a state court post-deprivation remedy to recover the property held as evidence.1 Specifically, Utah Code § 24-3-104 states:

Thus, Defendant argues, Plaintiffs have an adequate state-court post-deprivation remedy, thereby depriving this court of jurisdiction because Plaintiffs have not exhausted their remedies.

Plaintiffs, however, argue that it is Defendant's obligation to return the property to them, relying on Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-525, which is entitled, "Disposition of weapons after use for court purposes." This statute states:

Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-525 (emphasis added by Plaintiffs).

In addition, Plaintiffs explain that they previously filed a lawsuit in Eighth District Court, Duchesne County, on September 4, 2009, seeking the return of a part of the property they seek in the instant lawsuit. The case was dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Petitioners had failed to fulfill the notice of claim requirement under Utah Code Ann. § 63G-7-401.2 Plaintiffs did not attempt to remedy their failure to file a Notice of Claim. Now, Plaintiffs argue that "because they have attempted to utilize state law and have been denied possession of the guns and [denied] just compensation for their losses, the case is ripe."

While the court recognizes that the state statutes regarding the return of property, including weapons, in this situation are not clear, the court disagrees with Plaintiffs that the instant case is ripe. The state court's dismissal without prejudice of their petition for return of property did not give rise to a federal constitutional violation. Rather, Plaintiffs have simply failed to pursue their claim.

While this court has no knowledge about the timeliness of a new state court petition,3 the filing of such a petition would nevertheless provide an opportunity for all parties-perhaps along with the prosecutor-to reasonably evaluate whether return of any of the property at issue is warranted.4 Thus, because Plaintiffs have not pursued to finality their state court remedy, the court finds that the instant case is not ripe, thus depriving this court of jurisdiction.

In addition, even if the court had jurisdiction, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because they have failed to adequately allege any constitutional violation, given the availability of state-court remedies. Moreover, even if they had stated a claim, Defendant would be entitled to qualified immunity. Given the unclear nature of Utah's laws regarding the return of property — and in particular weapons—and the apparent discretion that is vested in the prosecutor to determining whether and when to return the property, the court finds that the law on this issue is not clearly established, thus entitling Defendant to qualified immunity.

While the court finds that it must dismiss this action, and notwithstanding the initiation of a new state court petition, the court hopes that Defendant, along with the prosecutor involved in the underlying case(s), will work with Plaintiffs to reach a reasonable resolution regarding any property that Plaintiffs are entitled to have returned to them, after establishing ownership.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 55] is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate any pending motions as moot and to close this case.