Arnold v. Inmate Acct at LA St

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-30219
Conference Calendar
DREW DAVID ARNOLD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
INMATE ACCOUNTS AT
LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 01-CV-944-A
--------------------
August 20, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Drew David Arnold, Louisiana prisoner number 96979, appeals
the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). Arnold maintains that the defendant
improperly lost his savings bonds. Arnold has not shown that the
district court erred in determining that, to the extent that
Arnold sought an order compelling the defendant to perform

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-30219
-2-
certain acts, the district court lacked jurisdiction to do so.
28 U.S.C. § 1361.
Arnold also has not shown that the district court erred in
determining that he had failed to raise a cognizable 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 claim. To successfully raise a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim,
the plaintiff must allege a violation of a constitutional right.
See Johnson v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 38 F.3d 198, 200 (5th
Cir. 1994). Arnold’s allegation of wrongful deprivation of
property does not implicate a constitutional right because
Louisiana provides an adequate postdeprivation remedy for
property loss claims. Marshall v. Norwood, 741 F.2d 761, 763-64
(5th Cir. 1984). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court
is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --