Michael DeMarco, Jr. v. Lorie Davis, Director, et, 914 F.3d 383

DeMarco, a Texas prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after an officer (Bynum) allegedly confiscated his legal and religious books and initiated a false disciplinary charge that led to solitary confinement.
He alleged due-process violations, denial of access to the courts, free-exercise burdens, retaliation by Bynum, and supervisory liability against Boyle and Stephens for deliberate indifference/failure to train.
The district court severed DeMarco’s challenge to the disciplinary hearing (treating it as potentially cognizable in habeas) and dismissed the remaining § 1983 claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
On appeal the Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo under the Rule 12(b)(6)/Iqbal-Twombly plausibility standard.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal of due-process (property), access-to-courts, retaliation, and claims against supervisory defendants, but reversed and remanded the free-exercise claim against Bynum in his individual capacity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Due process (property)	Seizure of personal property occurred without process	Seizure was random/unauthorized; Texas provides post-deprivation tort remedy	Dismissed — state-sanctioned delegation not alleged; adequate post-deprivation remedy exists
Access to courts	Confiscation of legal materials prevented filing certiorari	No actual injury shown; represented by counsel; no nonfrivolous claim identified	Dismissed — plaintiff failed to show actual injury to a nonfrivolous claim
Retaliation (First Amendment)	Bynum retaliated (confiscation + false charge) for prior grievances/witness offer	Allegations are conclusory, inconsistent dates; no direct evidence or clear chronology	Dismissed — failed to plausibly show retaliatory intent and causation
Free exercise of religion	Confiscation of Bible and religious books substantially burdened religious practice	No legitimate penological interest shown in pleadings; seizure assertedly arbitrary	Reversed/Remanded as to Bynum (individual capacity) — pleadings plausibly allege sincere belief and burden; reasonableness must be evaluated on remand
Supervisory liability (Boyle, Stephens)	They failed to train/ignored complaints about Bynum	No personal involvement or causal connection shown	Dismissed — conclusory failure-to-train/notice allegations insufficient

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard requiring factual plausibility)
Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (post-deprivation remedy doctrine for random/unauthorized deprivations)
Allen v. Thomas, 388 F.3d 147 (5th Cir. application of post-deprivation rule)
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (right of access requires actual injury to nonfrivolous claims)
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (prison regulations and Free Exercise/Turner reasonableness test)
Prison Legal News v. Livingston, 683 F.3d 201 (requirement that government show more than formalistic connection to penological objectives)
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (official-capacity damages suits barred by Eleventh Amendment)