Duncan v. Gonzales, 3:17-cv-00796

Plaintiff Arzie Wayne Duncan, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued Officer Lorena Gonzales under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Duncan alleges he accidentally left commissary bags on a bench and Gonzales confiscated them as abandoned property. He seeks return of the property and costs.
Duncan also alleges Gonzales called him names while on duty. He requests an apology and recovery of suit costs.
The matter was referred to a magistrate judge for preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e). No process had issued to defendant pending screening.
The magistrate evaluated whether the allegations state constitutional claims cognizable under § 1983 or must be dismissed for failure to state a claim or as barred by legal doctrines.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether confiscation of commissary property states a § 1983 due-process claim	Duncan contends Gonzales unlawfully confiscated his commissary bags and seeks return/costs	Confiscation was an unauthorized deprivation; state law provides adequate post-deprivation remedy (conversion/tort remedies)	Dismissed under Parratt/Hudson: unauthorized deprivation with adequate state post-deprivation remedies does not state a § 1983 claim
Whether verbal abuse (name-calling) states a § 1983 claim	Duncan alleges Gonzales called him names and seeks apology	Verbal abuse is not a constitutional violation under § 1983	Dismissed: verbal abuse fails to state a § 1983 claim
Whether complaint survives preliminary screening under § 1915A/§ 1915(e) standards (Twombly/Iqbal)	Pleading asserts facts supporting relief	Magistrate applies plausibility and screening standards to determine cognizable claims	Complaint dismissed as frivolous/for failure to state a claim under §§ 1915A and 1915(e)
Availability of state-law remedies as preclusive to federal claim	Duncan seeks federal relief for property loss	State tort law (conversion) provides adequate post-deprivation remedy	Federal claim barred; plaintiff must pursue state law remedies

Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (unauthorized intentional deprivations of property by state actors do not give rise to § 1983 claim when adequate state post-deprivation remedies exist)
Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (same principle for negligent/random deprivations; adequate state remedy bars § 1983 claim)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (application of Twombly plausibility standard)
Murphy v. Collins, 26 F.3d 541 (Texas tort of conversion supplies adequate post-deprivation remedy)
Stotter v. University of Texas at San Antonio, 508 F.3d 812 (discussion of Parratt/Hudson doctrine in Fifth Circuit)
Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191 (verbal abuse alone does not constitute a § 1983 claim)
Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (discussed in context of Parratt; limited relevance)