Charles W. White v. David H. Clark Lawrence T. Oden J. Branch Walton, 750 F.2d 721 (8th Cir. 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
Charles W. White v. David H. Clark Lawrence T. Oden J. Branch Walton, 750 F.2d 721 (8th Cir. 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
415 citation events (415 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Robby Owens v. Officer Willie Brown et al. (moed, 2026-05-14)
Treatment trajectory · 2019 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2019 2022 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Robby Owens v. Officer Willie Brown et al.
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a self-represented litigant’s complaint under section 1915, the Court accepts the well-pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam), and liberally construes the complaint, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rodney A. Campbell v. St. Charles County Jail and State of Missouri
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , the Court accepts the well-pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and it liberally construes the complaint.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) David James Milcendeau v. Centurion Health Services, et al.
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person, the Court accepts the well- pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and it liberally construes the complaint.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shannon J. Rollins v. K. Goggins, et al.
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , the Court accepts the well-pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and it liberally construes the complaint.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bryon Pierson, Jr. v. Cortex Innovation Center
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a pro se complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , the Court accepts the well- pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and liberally construes the complaint.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Frederick Allen Barnes v. Alex Downing, et al.
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a self-represented litigant’s complaint under section 1915, the Court accepts the well-pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam), and liberally construes the complaint, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) JOHN SHAPIRO v. JOY CAMPANELLI
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , the Court accepts the well- pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and it liberally construes the complaint.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Reygan Bougault v. Unknown Farrel
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , the Court accepts the well- pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and it liberally construes the complaint.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Adam Lee Janssen v. Jefferson County, MO, et al.
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , the Court accepts the well- pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and it liberally construes the complaint.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Maurice Campbell v. Erin Halbert et al.
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a self-represented litigant’s complaint under section 1915, the Court accepts the well-pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam), and liberally construes the complaint, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 , 520–21 (1972) (per curiam).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jasmine Cobbs v. IWG/Regus Management Group, LLC, et al.
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a pro se complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , the Court accepts the well- plead facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and liberally construes the complaint.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Clint Phillips, III v. U.S. Bank Inc., et al.
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , the Court accepts the well- pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and it liberally construes the complaint.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) L. Lupe King v. St. Louis Housing Authority
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a self-represented litigant’s complaint under section 1915, the Court accepts the well-pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam), and liberally construes the complaint, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jared Williams v. Trevor Foley, et al.
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a self-represented litigant’s complaint under section 1915, the Court accepts the well-pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam), and liberally construes the complaint, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Raevon Terrell Parker v. Sarah E. Pitlyk
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a self-represented litigant’s complaint under § 1915, the Court accepts the well-pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam), and liberally construes the complaint, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lisa Sharon Burchfield v. City of Berkeley Police Department, et al.
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a self-represented litigant’s complaint under § 1915, the Court accepts the well-pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam), and liberally construes the complaint, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) HAROLD DAVID FOGLE v. STEPHEN KORTE, et al.
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , the Court accepts the well- pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and it liberally construes the complaint.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) James Dean Hanna v. St. Charles County Department of Corrections
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , the Court accepts the well- pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and it liberally construes the complaint.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rudolph Kidd Jr. v. LGC Hospitality
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a self-represented litigant’s complaint under section 1915, the Court accepts the well-pleaded facts as true, White y Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam), and liberally construes the complaint, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Joevalis Lawrence Johnson v. Gregory Handcock, et al.
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a self-represented litigant’s complaint under § 1915, the Court accepts the well-pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam), and liberally construes the complaint, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thomas Carl Woods v. Fulton Reception Diagnostic Center
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a self-represented litigant’s complaint under § 1915, the Court accepts the well-pleaded facts as true, see White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam), and liberally construes the complaint, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kevin D. McDavis, Jr. v. Captain Unknown Price and Sgt. Unknown Pena
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
Legal Standard on Initial Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2), the Court may dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or complaint filed by a self-represented person under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , the Court accepts the well- pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and it liberally construes the complaint.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sandy Phillips v. Stoddard County Circuit Court, et al.
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , the Court accepts the well- pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and it liberally construes the complaint.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Leonard H. Burst v. Ste. Genevieve County Sheriff’s Office, et al.
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , the Court accepts the well- pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and it liberally construes the complaint.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Keith William Griffin v. Clifford Pankey et al.
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a self-represented litigant’s complaint under section 1915, the Court accepts the well-pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam), and liberally construes the complaint, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) GEBAR BYRD v. SHANON EATON
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , the Court accepts the well- pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and it liberally construes the complaint.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lisa Burchfield v. Nina Mattingly et al.
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a self-represented litigant’s complaint under section 1915, the Court accepts the well-pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam), and liberally construes the complaint, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); see also Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) MARIO LAMAR WILKES v. U.S. EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI COURTS PROBATION AND PAROLE
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , the Court accepts the well- pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and it liberally construes the complaint.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) David Allen Rawlings v. Ronnie Drake, et al.
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , the Court accepts the well- pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and liberally construes the complaint.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marilyn Williams-Goode v. Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a self-represented litigant’s complaint under § 1915, the Court accepts the well-pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam), and liberally construes the complaint, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dakota Ray Murray v. Donald Harper and Kentlee Harmon
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , the Court accepts the well- pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and it liberally construes the complaint.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Leah Jones v. Leroy Nicholson
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , the Court accepts the well-pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and liberally construes the complaint.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Donald Powell v. Ruth Ann Dickerson et al.
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person under § 1915, the Court accepts the well-pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and liberally construes the complaint.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thomas E. Morris III v. Unknown Davis, et al.
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person under § 1915, the Court accepts the well-pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and liberally construes the complaint.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kelly McSean v. Dan Bullock, et al.
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person under § 1915, the Court accepts the well-pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and liberally construes the complaint.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kelly La Gale McSean v. St. Francois County Detention Center, et al.
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , the Court accepts the well- pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and it liberally construes the complaint.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Francis M. Njogu v. Family Court Saint Louis Circuit Court
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and it liberally construes the complaint.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Clint Phillips, III v. U.S. Bank Corp.
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , the Court accepts the well- pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and it liberally construes the complaint.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Donald W. Sanders v. St. Louis, Missouri U.S. Attorney’s Office and Federal Bureau of Prisons Inmate Trust Fund
E.D. Mo. · 2025 · confidence medium
When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , the Court accepts the well- pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and it liberally construes (1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jamie Jones v. Sgt. Unknown Harris
E.D. Mo. · 2025 · confidence medium
When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person under § 1915, the Court accepts the well-pleaded facts as true, White v, Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and liberally construes the complaint, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Denise L. Holman v. Felix Vincenz, et al.
E.D. Mo. · 2025 · confidence medium
When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , the Court accepts the well- pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and it liberally construes the complaint.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Michael A. Newson v. Nature’s Bakery
E.D. Mo. · 2025 · confidence medium
When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , the Court accepts the well- pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and it liberally construes the complaint.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wayea Hallowanger v. Officer Unknown Anderer and Officer Unknown Levy
E.D. Mo. · 2025 · confidence medium
When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , the Court accepts the well- pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and it liberally construes the complaint.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dakota Murray v. Chad Price et al.
E.D. Mo. · 2025 · confidence medium
When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , the Court accepts the well- pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and liberally construes the complaint.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) George Harold Williams, Jr. v. Missouri Department of Social Services, Children's Division
E.D. Mo. · 2025 · confidence medium
When reviewing a self-represented litigant’s complaint under section 1915, the Court accepts the well-pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam) and liberally construes the complaint, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); see also Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Donnell Davis, Jr. v. St. Andrews
E.D. Mo. · 2025 · confidence medium
When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , the Court accepts the well- pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and it liberally construes the complaint.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) KEITH WILLIAM GRIFFIN v. OFFICER UNKNOWN CUMMINGS and PHELPS COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE
E.D. Mo. · 2025 · confidence medium
When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , the Court accepts the well- pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and it liberally construes the complaint.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ebony Griffin v. Caleres, Inc.
E.D. Mo. · 2025 · confidence medium
When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , the Court accepts the well-pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and it liberally construes the complaint.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ronald J.G. Sutton v. Dr. Unknown Luechtefeld, et al.
E.D. Mo. · 2025 · confidence medium
When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , the Court accepts the well- pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and it liberally construes the complaint.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Milcendeau v. Centurion Health Services
E.D. Mo. · 2025 · confidence medium
When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person, the Court accepts the well- pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and it liberally construes the complaint.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Charles W. WHITE, Appellant,
v.
David H. CLARK; Lawrence T. Oden; J. Branch Walton, Appellees
84-2198.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Dec 26, 1984.
750 F.2d 721
Charles W. White, pro se.
McMillian, Gibson, Bowman.
Cited by 375 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Charles William White, an inmate of the Missouri State Penitentiary, appeals from a final order entered in the District Court [1] for the Western District of Missouri dismissing without prejudice his civil rights action brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

White’s pro se complaint named as defendants three federal agents and one local law enforcement officer. [2] According to the complaint, two special agents of the United States Secret Service arrested White in March 1978 and confiscated his folding utility knife and brown kid gloves. Charges based on the arrest were later dismissed, but White’s personal property was not returned to him. Instead, White alleged that a third special agent transferred White’s gloves to a party not named as a defendant and transferred White’s knife to defendant Sergeant Nicola of the Clay County Sheriff’s Department. White never recovered the property or received compensation for it. He sought the return of the property, its suppression as evidence and actual and punitive damages for the violation of his constitutional rights guaranteed by the fourth and fifth amendments.

The district court granted White leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and dismissed the complaint as frivolous within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). In reviewing the dismissal of a pro se complaint, we liberally construe the complaint, the facts are taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and all well-pleaded allegations are considered as true. E.g., Martin-Trigona v. Stewart, 691 F.2d 856, 858 (8th Cir.1982) (per curiam). So viewed, White’s complaint appears to claim an unreasonable seizure of his property as well as deprivation of his property without due process.

We agree with the district court's conclusion that, under Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981), and Hudson v. Palmer, - U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984), the allegations in this complaint fail to state a constitutional claim against any of the defendants. White has not shown a denial of due process in light of postdeprivation remedies that were available to him in state and federal courts. Further, absent an allegation that either his arrest or the original seizure of his property was unlawful, White failed to state a claim that his fourth amendment rights were violated.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Russell G. Clark, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

2

. We note, as did the district court, that, with respect to the local law enforcement officer defendant, an action of this type against a state official is properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 rather than under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.