Summary
holding that a Missouri prisoner did not state a §1983 due process claim regarding the confiscation of money from his inmate trust account because he had an adequate state remedy
Summary of this case from Blockburger v. DorseyOpinion
No. 06-1512.
Submitted: February 1, 2007.
Filed: February 5, 2007.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
John C. Skinner, Jefferson City, MO, pro se
Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
[UNPUBLISHED]
Missouri inmate John C. Skinner appeals from the district court's 28 U.S.C. § 1915A order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the State of Missouri and the Attorney General of Missouri, Jeremiah Nixon. Having carefully reviewed the record de novo, see Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam), we agree with the court that Skinner's challenge to the confiscation of money in his inmate account pursuant to the Missouri Incarceration Reimbursement Act (MIRA) does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984) (intentional deprivation of property does not violate due process when meaningful post-deprivation remedy is available). Finally, we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Skinner appointment of counsel. See Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998).
The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable William A. Knox, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).