Cletis Goodman v. Sanfford Pollack

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-1176
___________________________
Cletis Goodman
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Sanfford Pollack
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant
Jennifer Stehlik Ladman
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee
Brody Duncan; State of Nebraska, Seward County Nebraska & Sheriff
Department; Thomas R. Johnson; State of Nebraska
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants
Seward County, Nebraska; Seward County Sheriff's Office
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
____________
Submitted: August 24, 2016
Filed: August 29, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________

-- 1 of 2 --

Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Cletis Goodman appeals from the order of the District Court dismissing his 421
U.S.C. § 1983 action that alleged due process violations related to the seizure of his
personal property during a criminal investigation. After careful review, we conclude
that Goodman could not proceed on a due-process claim because Nebraska law
provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517,
533 (1984) (holding “that an unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a
state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the
Due Process Clause . . . if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is
available”); State v. Agee, 741 N.W.2d 161, 168 (Neb. 2007) (noting in an appeal
from an order overruling a motion for the return of property seized in a criminal case
“that the government’s disposition . . . of property does not moot a motion for return
of the property”); see also Adams v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 813 F.3d 1151, 1154
(8th Cir. 2016) (“We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss.”);
Spirtas Co. v. Nautilus Ins. Co., 715 F.3d 667, 670–71 (8th Cir. 2013) (“This court
can affirm on any basis supported in the record.”).
We affirm the judgment of the District Court and deny the pending motion for
sanctions.
______________________________
The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the1
District of Nebraska.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --