JUNIOR WILNON BYRD, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
LARRY STEWART, SO. CID, THOMAS COUNTY, GEORGIA, LENORD HARRIS, DEPUTY SHERIFF, MADISON COUNTY, FLORIDA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a pro se plaintiff's complaint alleging unlawful search and seizure by state officers acting under color of state law states a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, alleged that law enforcement officers unlawfully entered his premises, broke locks, and seized his personal property. The…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Parratt V. Taylor cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This court sua sponte vacates and withdraws its previous opinion in this case, published at 803 F. 2d 1168. In its place, the following opinion is substituted:
Byrd, appearing pro se, brought this suit based upon the following allegation:
On June 21, 1985, Larry Stewart, accompanied by Lenord Harris did make their entrance into the premises of 133 Barnes Street, Thomasville, Georgia, by breaking the house door lock and the door lock of the utility house behind the house without plaintiff or R.L. Simmons who had full control and consent. They then and there take plaintiff’s personal properties, tools, legal documents, personal papers and etc. See attachments.
The district court dismissed this claim for failure to set forth a jurisdictional basis and for failure to state a claim. We reverse and remand to the district court.
The district court’s confusion as to how to handle the plaintiff’s complaint is understandable. Upon reading the complaint, it is difficult to discern whether the plaintiff seeks damages for the unlawful retention of his personal property or for the unlawful seizure of such property. If plaintiff intends to allege that the officers have failed to return the items seized without due process of law, such a procedural due process claim would be barred by Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981).1 If the plaintiff intends to allege that the search and seizure itself was unlawful, such a fourth amendment claim would not be barred by the Parratt doctrine. See Gilmere v. City of Atlanta, 774 F. 2d 1495 (11th Cir.1985).
Pro se pleadings are to be held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys. Watson v. Ault, 525 F. 2d 886 (5th Cir.1976). Granting appellant an expansive reading of the complaint, the bare bones allegation of the complaint sets forth a claim that plaintiff was subjected to an unlawful search and seizure conducted by state law enforcement officers acting under color of state law. As such, the complaint sets forth a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982).
Accordingly, we remand to the district court so that defendants may file responsive pleadings. Should plaintiff prove to be unable to set forth specific facts showing that the officers seized his property in violation of the fourth amendment, the district court may properly dispose of this action by granting summary judgment in favor of defendants.
Having withdrawn the previous opinion of this panel, the decision of the district court is
REVERSED and REMANDED.
. The state of Georgia has created a civil cause of action for the wrongful deprivation of personal property. Ga.Code Ann. § 51-10-1 (1982). This statutory provision covers the unauthorized seizure of personal property by police officers. Cf. Norred v. Dispain, 119 Ga.App. 29, 166 S.E. 2d 38 (1969) (trover action may be brought against Chief of Police for seizure of personalty). Therefore, the state has provided an adequate post deprivation remedy when a plaintiff claims that the state has retained his property without due process of law.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Case v. Eslinger, 555 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2009)…omplaint under the Fourth Amendment “that the search and seizure itself was unlawful,” from a complaint “that the officers have failed to return the items seized without due process of law,” which is a cause of action under the Fourteenth Amendment. 811 F. 2d 554, 554-55 (11th Cir.1987). A complaint of continued retention of legally seized property raises an issue of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, but Case did not raise that issue in the district court. See Lindsey, 936 F. 2d at 561…
-
Lindsey v. Storey, 936 F.2d 554 (11th Cir. 1991)…rs the unauthorized seizure of personal property by police officers. Therefore, the state has provided an adequate postdeprivation remedy when a plaintiff claims that the state has retained his property without due process of law.” Byrd v. Stewart, 811 F. 2d 554, 555 n. 1 (11th Cir.1987) (citing Norred v. Dispain, 119 Ga.App. 29, 166 S.E. 2d 38 (1969) (trover action may be brought against police chief for seizure and retention of automobile)). Because plaintiff Lindsey has had access to an adequate postde…1 / 2
-
Fernandez v. United States, 941 F.2d 1488 (11th Cir. 1991)…rict court in its § 2255 order will be reversed only if clearly erroneous. United States v. Deal, 678 F. 2d 1062, 1065 (11th Cir.1982). Pro se pleadings are held to “a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys.” Byrd v. Stewart, 811 F. 2d 554, 555 (11th Cir.1987). We therefore liberally construe Fernandez’s assertions to discern whether jurisdiction to consider his motion can be founded on a legally justifiable base. See United States v. Jordan, 915 F. 2d 622, 624-25 (11th Cir.1990), c…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1981)
- Gilmere v. City OF Atlanta, 774 F.2d 1495 (11th Cir. 1985)
- Watson v. Ault, 525 F.2d 886 (5th Cir. 1976)
- Junior Wilnon Byrd v. Stewart, 803 F.2d 1168 (11th Cir. 1986)