James F. Taylor v. MacE Knapp

James Taylor appeals the grant of summary judgment against him in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. We affirm.

The Lifers Club, Inc., is a nonprofit, non-stock corporation formed by five prison inmates of the Nevada State Prison at Carson City, Nevada, allegedly as a service organization for fellow inmates. Taylor alleges in his complaint that various prison officials unlawfully seized and converted money and assets belonging to the Lifers Club for their own personal use. Taylor alleges that he is an officer of the corporation, but he sued as an individual plaintiff.

The district court granted summary judgment because the claims were based on allegedly unauthorized, random acts of state agents, and the state of Nevada provided an adequate postdeprivation remedy for such torts. The court held that federal *805 relief was barred by Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 , 101 S.Ct. 1908 , 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981), and its progeny. The court also concluded that Taylor, who is not an attorney, could not represent the interests of the Lifers Club, and that the corporation could not appear pro se.

Eight days after summary judgment was entered, Taylor filed a motion for relief from…

871 F.2d 803 James F. TAYLOR, et al., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mace KNAPP, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 87-2510. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 18, 1988. * Decided March 21, 1989. Concurring Opinion March 30, 1989. James F. Taylor, Carson City, Nev., in pro. per. John H. Cary, Deputy Atty. Gen., Carson City, Nev., for defendants-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Before GOODWIN, Chief Judge, SNEED and HUG, Circuit Judges. GOODWIN, Chief Judge: 1 James Taylor appeals the grant of summary judgment against him in his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 civil rights action. We affirm. 2 The Lifers Club, Inc., is a nonprofit, nonstock corporation formed by five prison inmates of the Nevada State Prison at Carson City, Nevada, allegedly as a service organization for fellow inmates. Taylor alleges in his complaint that various prison officials unlawfully seized and converted money and assets belonging to the Lifers Club for their own personal use. Taylor alleges that he is an officer of the corporation, but he sued as an individual plaintiff. 3 The district court granted summary judgment because the claims were based on…

concurring in part and concurring in part in the result:

I concur in Part I of the majority opinion and that portion of Part II that deals with Taylor’s right to represent the Lifers Club. I concur in the result reached by the majority in the remainder of Part II, that portion devoted to the discussion of Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 , 101 S.Ct. 1908 , 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981).

I have set forth the substance of my thinking regarding Parratt v. Taylor in my concurring in the result opinion in Mann v. City of Tucson, 782 F.2d 790, 794-800 (9th Cir.1986). The deprivation in this case was not the result of an “unconstitutional state law, policy, procedure, pattern, or practice.” Id. at 798 . Therefore, the existence of post deprivation state remedies should satisfy the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment.