Unpublished Dispositionlarry Nelson, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Detroit Police Department and Lt. Grey, Defendants-appellees(case No. 85-1302),, 798 F.2d 470 (6th Cir. 1986)

ORDER

Nelson appeals pro se from the district court's judgments dismissing his civil rights cases. These appeals have been referred to a panel of the Court pursuant to Rule 9 (a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. After an examination of the records and the briefs, this panel agrees unanimously that oral argument is not needed. Rule 34(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Nelson is currently imprisoned at the Federal Correctional Institution in Milan, Michigan. The defendants are the Detroit Police Department and individual police officers. In Case No. 85-1302, Nelson alleged that a police officer released his money to an individual without affording Nelson due process of law. In Case No. 85-1303, Nelson alleged that a police officer refused to investigate Nelson's burglary report, denying Nelson his equal protection rights.

The district court entered orders in each case dismissing the complaints as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. S1915(d). A civil rights case can be dismissed under that section if the case is frivolous. Brooks v. Dutton, 751 F.2d 197, 199 (6th Cir. 1985). A case is frivolous if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief. Spruyette v. Walters, 753 F.2d 498, 500 (6th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, U.S. I 106 S. Ct. 788 (1986).

In Case No. 85-1302, a liberal construction of the complaint indicates that Nelson is alleging that he was negligently deprived of his property by a state official. Such negligent deprivation does not state a due process claim if the state provides an adequate remedy. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 543-44 (1981). Because Nelson's complaint indicates that he had not filed any previous lawsuits concerning this issue, it is clear that he still possesses an adequate state remedy for this alleged deprivation. So it appears beyond doubt that Nelson can prove no set of facts entitling him to relief.

In Case No. 85-1303, Nelson alleged that a police officer failed to investigate a burglary. Refusal to investigate an alleged crime does not state a civil rights claim absent violation of another constitutional right. Gomez v Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985). In order to state an equal protection violation, the alleged discrimination must be based on poverty, . race, color, sex, or religion. Joyce v. Mavromatis, --- F.2d ----, Case No. 85-3509 (6th Cir. February 10, 1986). Here Nelson's complaint contains no such allegations, so again Nelson can prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief.

The judgments of the district court are affirmed under Rule 9(d) (3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit, because the issues are not substantial and do not require oral argument.