Coburn v. Wilkinson
700 F. App'x 834
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Inmate Chad A. Coburn was removed from his kitchen job and placed in segregation on June 17, 2014; Property Supervisor Joanne Cartwright inventoried his belongings and Coburn signed the Personal Property Receipt twice.
- Coburn later filed two "Lost/Damaged/Stolen Personal Property Claim" forms alleging items were lost or stolen; Cartwright investigated and denied the claims, and Warden Wilkinson affirmed the denial on appeal.
- Coburn sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection clauses, asserting inventory errors and selective assistance by staff.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under § 1997e(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing Coburn received the available post-deprivation process and made only conclusory equal-protection allegations.
- The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim, finding adequate post-deprivation procedures and insufficient equal-protection facts; it counted one § 1915(g) strike. The Tenth Circuit affirmed and assessed a second § 1915(g) strike for the frivolous appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process for alleged loss/theft of property | Coburn: staff mis-inventoried cell and deprived him of property without process | Defs: Coburn received inventory receipt, used grievance process, and had no proof of ownership | Court: No due-process violation — meaningful post-deprivation remedies were available and used; denial of claim ≠ denial of process |
| Adequacy of post-deprivation remedy | Coburn: administrative process insufficient (implied by outcome) | Defs: grievance system was available, investigated, and reviewed by the warden | Court: Grievance procedure was adequate and responsive; Coburn showed no unresponsiveness |
| Equal protection — disparate treatment | Coburn: officials "pick and choose" whom to help; acted with malice | Defs: allegations are conclusory and lack supporting facts | Court: Dismissed — Coburn failed to allege facts showing disparate treatment of similarly situated inmates |
| Frivolous appeal / § 1915(g) strike | Coburn appealed district court dismissal | Defs: appeal meritless; prior strike exists | Held: Appeal deemed frivolous; second § 1915(g) strike assessed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1974) (unauthorized intentional deprivation of property is not a due-process violation if an adequate post-deprivation remedy exists)
- Freeman v. Dep’t of Corrs., 949 F.2d 360 (10th Cir. 1991) (post-deprivation procedure must not be unresponsive or inadequate)
- Copelin-Brown v. New Mexico State Pers. Office, 399 F.3d 1248 (10th Cir. 2005) (state must use fair procedures before depriving life, liberty, or property)
- Archuleta v. Colo. Dep’t of Insts., Div. of Youth Servs., 936 F.2d 483 (10th Cir. 1991) (due-process procedural requirements summarized)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state plausible claim above speculative level)
- Brown v. Montoya, 662 F.3d 1152 (10th Cir. 2011) (equal-protection requires treatment different from similarly situated persons)
- Brown v. Zavaras, 63 F.3d 967 (10th Cir. 1995) (plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to overcome presumption of government rationality)
- Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2007) (standards for § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) dismissal align with Rule 12(b)(6))
- Perkins v. Kansas Dept. of Corrections, 165 F.3d 803 (10th Cir. 1999) (pro se § 1915 dismissal proper only when plaintiff cannot prevail on alleged facts and amendment would be futile)
- Jennings v. Natrona Cty. Det. Ctr. Med. Facility, 175 F.3d 775 (10th Cir. 1999) (dismissal of appeal as frivolous counts as a § 1915(g) strike)