United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
GEORGE F. ALDRIDGE, JR., Plaintiff,
BRIAN HOSKIN, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CRITES-LEONI, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration. (Doc. 15.) Also pending is Plaintiff's
Motion to Correct Spelling of Defendants' Names and
Request for Service on these Defendants. (Doc. 20.)
George F. Aldridge, Jr. filed suit, pro se, in the
Circuit Court of Mississippi County, Missouri, on March 14,
2019. (Doc. 1-3.) The Petition asserts claims of violations
of Aldridge's constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Id. Aldridge was at all relevant times
an inmate confined at either Southeast Correctional Center
(“SECC”) or the Eastern Reception Diagnostic
Correctional Center (“ERDCC”). Aldridge claims
that the prison official Defendants violated his Due Process
rights when they took his personal property.
Hoskins removed this action from the Circuit Court of
Mississippi County on May 7, 2019, citing original
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Doc. 1.)
filed a Motion to Remand, in which he argued that this action
is not removable for the following reasons: he has not
exhausted all available state remedies, the Court should give
deference to the plaintiff's selection of forum, his
state law claims are not preempted by federal law, and the
removal of this case to this Court will deny him of Due
Process of law. (Doc. 10.)
Order dated August 2, 2019, the Court found that it had
original jurisdiction over Aldridge's § 1983 claims
and denied the Motion to Remand. (Doc. 14.) Aldridge now
requests that the Court reconsider its ruling.
citing Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1986),
contends that a Due Process claim based on the loss of
personal property fails to state a claim cognizable in
federal court. He argues that the Court should therefore
reconsider the Order denying his Motion to Remand.
a prisoner of his property may implicate the Due Process
Clause and form the basis for a § 1983 action. As
Aldridge states in his Motion for Reconsideration, if a state
provides adequate remedies to compensate individuals for
wrongful property loss, there is no absence of Due Process.
See Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533, Clark v. Kansas
City Missouri School Dist., 375 F.3d 698, 703 (8th Cir.
2004). Missouri provides the post-deprivation remedy of
replevin for recovery of personal property, Mo. R. Civ. P.
99.01 - 99.15, and Aldridge does not allege this remedy is
argues that his Petition fails to state a cognizable §
1983 claim and is frivolous. Under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint
filed in forma pauperis if it is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. Aldridge, however, did not file an
action in forma pauperis in this Court. Instead, he
chose to file his § 1983 claim in state court. As such,
the undersigned has no ability to review his claims for
frivolity under § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Court declines to reconsider the decision denying
Aldridge's Motion to Remand. Defendant removed this case
under this Court's federal question jurisdiction, 28
U.S.C. § 1331, because the Petition sets forth a civil
action arising under the laws of the United States.
Specifically, Aldridge titled his petition “Verified
Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, ” and sets forth
violations of his constitutional rights by prison officials.
Thus, this Court has original jurisdiction over
Aldridge's § 1983 claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331
and supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims under
28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The issue Aldridge attempts to
raise in his Motion for Reconsideration of whether he states
a claim upon which relief can be granted is appropriate for
consideration in a motion to dismiss.
pending is Aldridge's motion to correct the spelling of
Defendants David Ballew and John Mills to: “Michael
Bellew” and “Brandon Mills, ” respectively.
(Doc. 20.) Aldridge states that these Defendants and
Defendant Jerry Walls have not been served. He requests that
the Court issue summonses for these Defendants.
Aldridge's Motion will be granted.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's
Motion for ...