Smith v. Helms

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: October 2, 2024
• Docket: 24-20038
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-20038 Document: 45-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/02/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-20038 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ October 2, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce William Denon Smith, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

D. Helms, Sergeant, Houston Police Department Precinct 4 Badge # 128766; D. Callier, Officer, Houston Police Department Precinct 4 Badge #84C51; Deputy Hills, Harris County Sheriff Office; Houston Police Department Constable Officer,

Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:22-CV-4198 ______________________________

Before Elrod, Haynes, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * William Denon Smith, Texas prisoner # 2383544, appeals from the district court’s 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim. Smith alleges that his property was

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-20038 Document: 45-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/02/2024

No. 24-20038

confiscated in connection with his arrest on various charges, most of which were later dropped. The district court concluded that Smith failed to allege a procedural due process violation because Texas law provides a meaningful post-deprivation remedy for the loss of property. We review dismissals under § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim de novo using the same de novo standard applicable to dismissals pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Legate v. Livingston, 822 F.3d 207, 209-10 (5th Cir. 2016). Affording Smith’s pro se brief liberal construction, see Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995), he alleges—and his complaint suggests—that the deprivation resulted from established state procedures rather than random and unauthorized action, meaning that a § 1983 claim could be cognizable. See Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 115, 138 (1990); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532 (1984). Smith also correctly argues that the district court erred by sua sponte dismissing his complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim without putting him on notice of the inadequacy of his complaint, seeking further factual development of his claim, or giving him the opportunity to allege his best case. See Brown v. Taylor, 829 F.3d 365, 370 (5th Cir. 2016); Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9-10 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we VACATE the dismissal of Smith’s complaint and REMAND to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.