Cletis Goodman v. Jennifer Stehlik Ladman, No. 16-1176 (8th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Bowman and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Nebraska law provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for contesting the seizure of plaintiff's personal property and he could not proceed on a due-process claim under Section 1983. [ August 26, 2016

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-1176 ___________________________ Cletis Goodman lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Sanfford Pollack lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant Jennifer Stehlik Ladman lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee Brody Duncan; State of Nebraska, Seward County Nebraska & Sheriff Department; Thomas R. Johnson; State of Nebraska lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants Seward County, Nebraska; Seward County Sheriff's Office lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha ____________ Submitted: August 24, 2016 Filed: August 29, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Cletis Goodman appeals from the order of the District Court1 dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action that alleged due process violations related to the seizure of his personal property during a criminal investigation. After careful review, we conclude that Goodman could not proceed on a due-process claim because Nebraska law provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (holding “that an unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause . . . if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available”); State v. Agee, 741 N.W.2d 161, 168 (Neb. 2007) (noting in an appeal from an order overruling a motion for the return of property seized in a criminal case “that the government’s disposition . . . of property does not moot a motion for return of the property”); see also Adams v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 813 F.3d 1151, 1154 (8th Cir. 2016) (“We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss.”); Spirtas Co. v. Nautilus Ins. Co., 715 F.3d 667, 670–71 (8th Cir. 2013) (“This court can affirm on any basis supported in the record.”). We affirm the judgment of the District Court and deny the pending motion for sanctions. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.