UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _____________________

No. 95-60702 Summary Calendar

_____________________

GEORGE POTTS, JR.

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

PETE POPE; MIKE ROBICHAUX,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:94-CV-428-Br-R

October 29, 1998

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

George Potts, Jr., Mississippi prisoner #A13227, appeals from

the summary judgment granted defendants in his civil rights action.

(Potts’ motions to supplement the record, for appointment of counsel, and for oral argument are DENIED.)

Potts contends that the defendants inflicted cruel and unusual

punishment by placing him in substandard living conditions

following a riot; and that he was deprived of his personal property

without due process of law. As for the punishment claim, we have

* 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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. reviewed the record and the briefs and find no reversible error,

for essentially the reasons relied upon by the district court. See

Potts v. Pope, No. 1:94-CV-428-Br-R (S.D. Miss. Oct. 20, 1995).

Regarding the due process claim, a random unauthorized

deprivation of property does not violate due process if an adequate

post-deprivation remedy exists. Alexander v. Ieyoub,

(5th Cir. 1995). A deprivation pursuant to policy or other

authorization, however, may violate due process despite the

availability of such remedies.

. On the other hand,

“[t]he necessity for quick action by the state coupled with an

adequate post-deprivation hearing [may] obviate[] the need for a

predeprivation hearing”. Beck v. Lynaugh,

(5th

Cir. 1988). Restated, the availability of post-deprivation

remedies satisfies due process when exigent circumstances exist

that allow a property seizure without a predeprivation hearing.

McQueen v. Vance, No. 95-50486, slip op. at 2-3 (5th Cir. Sep. 20,

1995)(precedential unpublished opinion).

Jail authorities acted legitimately to restore order and

ensure security when they seized prisoners’ personal property to

search for contraband. Under the circumstances, no predeprivation

process was necessary. In addition, Mississippi provides adequate

post-deprivation relief through legal actions in state court.

Nikens v. Melton,

(5th Cir. 1994); MISS. CODE ANN.

§ 11-38-1 (Supp. 1998). Because Potts had adequate post-

deprivation remedies, there was no due process violation.

AFFIRMED

- 2 -