Sawyer v. Burke, 504 F. App'x 671

Sawyer, a sex offender civilly committed to Larned State Hospital in Kansas, challenges the hospital’s seizure of a clock radio and stereo shipped to him.
The district court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the action under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failing to state a claim.
Sawyer claims the hospital denial of two items violated his constitutional rights and seeks relief under procedural due process and equal protection.
The hospital denied certain items due to Security Level Zero; items denied included a television, DVD player, MP3 stereo, alarm clock, and a black video cable, with some items returned to the shipper.
Sawyer relies on a resident handbook permitting a radio, CD player, or tape player for Level Zero residents, and contends policy violation breached policy and constitutional rights; district court analyzed claims and this appeal follows.
The panel affirms the district court’s dismissal, addressing due process limitations and lack of evidence of discriminatory purpose.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sawyer states a procedural due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment.	Sawyer argues hospital denial violated due process per handbook.	State policy governs items by security level, not due process violation.	Procedural due process claim fails; negligence and policy-driven decision do not constitute due process violation.
Whether Sawyer states an equal protection claim with discriminatory purpose.	Sawyer asserts racial animus influenced the decision.	Policy-based decision not motivated by race; no evidence of selective enforcement.	Equal protection claim fails; no demonstrated discriminatory purpose; district court proper to dismiss.

Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (U.S. 1986) (due process not implicated by negligent government act)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standards require plausible claims, not mere conclusory assertions)
Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (U.S. 1976) (discriminatory purpose required for equal protection claim)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard; facts must raise reasonable inference of entitlement to relief)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1972) (pro se complaints liberally construed)
Perkins v. Kansas Dep’t of Corr., 165 F.3d 803 (10th Cir. 1999) (applies de novo standard for § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) dismissals; proper when no state claim stated)
Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 2010) (liberal construction of pro se filings; factual allegations must support relief)