Knapp v. Arlitz et al

Filing 52

ORDER DISMISSING 50 Fourth Amended Complaint, with Prejudice, for Failure to State a Cognizable Claim for Relief and Directing Clerk of Court to Enter Judgment signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 02/06/2015. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ERIC CHARLES RODNEY K’NAPP,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ARLITZ, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-00412-SAB (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING FOURTH AMENDED
COMPLAINT, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE
TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR
RELIEF AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT
TO ENTER JUDGMENT
[ECF No. 50]

17

Plaintiff Eric Charles Rodney K’Napp is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to

18

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United

19

States Magistrate Judge on March 23, 2009. Local Rule 302.

20
21
22

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint, filed December 18,
2014. (ECF No. 50.)
On September 16, 2014, the Court screened and dismissed Plaintiff’s third amended complaint

23

with leave to amend. (ECF No. 42.) Plaintiff appealed the September 16, 2014, order to the United

24

States Court of Appeals and the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (ECF No. 49.)

25

Because Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint is a verbatim copy of his prior third amended

26

complaint, the complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief, with

27

prejudice and without leave to amend.

28

I.
1

1

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

2

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

3

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

4

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

5

“frivolous or malicious,” that “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that “seeks

6

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

7

In determining whether a complaint states a claim, the Court looks to the pleading standard

8

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Under Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a short and

9

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

10

“[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require” detailed factual allegations, “but it

11

demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v.

12

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

13

554, 555 (2007)).

14

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in

15

the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). This requires the

16

presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at

17

678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). “[A] complaint [that] pleads

18

facts that are” merely consistent with “a defendant’s liability . . .” stops short of the line between

19

possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550

20

U.S. at 557). Further, although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a

21

complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

22

“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do

23

not suffice.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

24

II.

25

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

26

Throughout the first ten years and five months of Plaintiff’s confinement within the California

27

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), numerous doctors at multiple prisons

28

independently and consistently verified that Plaintiff suffers from chronic Post-Traumatic Stress
2

1

Disorder, anxiety, and depression. Plaintiff was prescribed psychiatric medication to be taken on a

2

daily basis and it was ordered that he be housed in a single cell. During this time period, Plaintiff and

3

his mother availed themselves of speech to report and address unlawful events taking place with the

4

CDCR.
On August 23, 2005, Defendant Hickman caused Plaintiff to be transferred to Pleasant Valley

5
6

State Prison (PVSP). Beginning on August 23, 2004, Defendants Collins, Delk, Grannis, Hickman,

7

Negrete, Parks, Shannon, Tilton, Woodford, and Yates caused and allowed Plaintiff to be and remain

8

deprived of personal property belonging to him. Also, on August 23, 2005, Defendants Arlitz, Does 1

9

and 2, Hickman, Hitchcock, Parks, Prince, Shannon, Tilton, Woodford, and Yates caused and allowed

10

Plaintiff to remain completely deprived of and denied doctor-prescribed psychiatric medication until

11

September 4, 2005, while he was locked inside a windowless cell twenty-four hours a day with no

12

outdoor exercise, telephone access, visitation with loved ones, religious services, sunlight, fresh air, or

13

view of the outdoor until September 8, 2005.
Beginning on August 28, 2005, Defendants Grannis, Hickman, Parks, Shannon, Tilton,

14
15

Woodford, and Yates caused and allowed Plaintiff’s inmate appeal regarding the above events and

16

omission to be and remain obstructed.
Beginning on August 31, 2005, Defendants Hickman, Parks, Shannon, Tilton, Woodford, and

17
18

Yates caused and allowed Plaintiff’s emergency inmate appeal regarding the above events and

19

omissions to be obstructed.
On September 4, 2005, Defendants Arlitz, Doe 2, Hickman, Hitchcock, Marks, Murphy, Parks,

20
21

Prince, Shannon, Tilton, Woodford, and Yates caused and allowed Plaintiff’s permanent prison

22

medical records to be falsified to fraudulently reflect a mental condition that Plaintiff did not actually

23

suffer.

24

Beginning on September 5, 2005, Defendants Hickman, Parks, Shannon, Tilton, Woodford,

25

and Yates caused and allowed Plaintiff’s emergency inmate appeal regarding the above events and

26

omission to be obstructed.

27

On September 8, 2005, Defendants Arlitz, Doe 2, Fisher, Grannis, Hickman, Hitchcock,

28

Marks, Murphy, Parks, Prince, Shannon, Tilton, Woodford, and Yates caused and allowed Plaintiff to
3

1

be and remain serious and irreparably injured and harmed as a result of being mentally, verbally,

2

physically, and sexually attacked by Defendant Prince.

3

On September 13, 2005, Defendants Fisher, Grannis, Hickman, Parks, Shannon, Tilton,

4

Woodford, and Yates caused and allowed Plaintiff’s inmate appeal regarding the above events and

5

omission to be and remain obstructed.

6

On September 27, 2005, Defendants Arlitz, Hickman, Nelson, Prince, Puig, Tilton, Woodford,

7

and Yates caused and allowed Plaintiff to be and remain subjected to a third inter-prison transfer in

8

only seven months, to a prison located more than 250 miles away from Sacramento.

9

On October 23, 2005, Defendants Grannis, Hickman, Parks, Shannon, Tilton, Woodford, and

10

Yates caused and allowed Plaintiff’s inmate appeal regarding the above events and omission to be and

11

remain obstructed.

12

III.

13

DISCUSSION

14

A.

Supervisory Liability

15

Supervisory personnel may not be held liable under section 1983 for the actions of subordinate

16

employees based on respondeat superior, or vicarious liability. Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967,

17

977 (9th Cir. 2013); accord Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75

18

(9th Cir. 2013); Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 711 F.3d 941, 967-68 (9th Cir. 2013); Lacey v. Maricopa

19

County, 693 F.3d 896, 915-16 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). “A supervisor may be liable only if (1) he or

20

she is personally involved in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) there is a sufficient causal

21

connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.” Crowley, 734

22

F.3d at 977 (citing Snow, 681 F.3d at 989) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Lemire, 726

23

F.3d at 1074-75; Lacey, 693 F.3d at 915-16. “Under the latter theory, supervisory liability exists even

24

without overt personal participation in the offensive act if supervisory officials implement a policy so

25

deficient that the policy itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights and is the moving force of a

26

constitutional violation.” Crowley, 734 F.3d at 977 (citing Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th

27

Cir. 1989)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

28
4

Plaintiff contends that Defendants Hickman, Tilton, Woodford, and Yates intentionally and

1
2

negligently: failed to enforce the laws of the United States and California Constitutions; failed to take

3

adequate precautions in the hiring, retention, and promotion of the Defendants who were subordinate

4

to them at all times relevant to this action; failed to appoint, promote, train, and supervise CDCR

5

officials, employees, and agents who would respect and enforce the Constitutions and laws of the

6

United States and State of California; failed to adequately supervise, train, discipline, and control, the

7

defendants who were subordinate to them; failed to establish and ensure the proper functioning of a

8

meaningful and bona fide system for CDCR prisoners to report, complaint about, and obtain

9

administrative redress of law and rights violations committed against them by CDCR officials,

10

employees, and agents; failed to report complaints of violations committed by CDCR officials,

11

employees, and agents; failed to forward to the United States Department of Justice or California

12

Attorney General evidence of CDCR officials, employees, and agents violations of prisoner’s rights;

13

failed to prohibit CDCR officials, employees, and agents from engaging in a custom, policy, and

14

practice of retaliating against Plaintiff for his and his mother’s protected conduct; turned a blind eye

15

and deaf ear to the alleged violations; and issued, ratified, approved, implemented, administered, and

16

otherwise caused or allowed the existence and continuation of vague, confusing, contradictory, and

17

otherwise questionable customs, policies, practices, and procedures that conflict with Amendments I,

18

IV, VIII, IX, and XIV of the United States Constitution.
Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim for supervisory liability by the failure to protect him

19
20

from alleged violations. Plaintiff fails to allege facts to support the inference that any of the alleged

21

supervisors took culpable actions-or inaction-in the training, supervision, or control of his subordinates

22

or engaged in conduct that showed a reckless or callous indifference to the rights of others. Plaintiff

23

fails to allege any actions taken by the named supervisors which could be construed as amounting to a

24

custom, policy, or practice of violating Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Thus, Plaintiff has done

25

nothing more than simply regurgitate the applicable standard, and there are no facts to plausibly

26

support a claim of supervisory liability. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim based

27

on supervisory liability.

28

///
5

1

B.

Equal Protection

2

Plaintiff presents six counts of alleged violations of the Equal Protection Clause. In count one,

3

Plaintiff contends that Defendants Collins, Delk, Grannis, Hickman, Negrete, Parks, Shannon, Tilton,

4

Woodford, and Yates deprived Plaintiff of his personal property in violation of Plaintiff’s rights to

5

equal protection of the laws. In count two, Plaintiff contends Defendants Arlitz, Does 1 and 2,

6

Hickman, Hitchcock, Parks, Prince, Shannon, Tilton, Woodford, and Yates caused and denied

7

Plaintiff’s doctor prescribed psychiatric medication from August 23, 2005 to September 4, 2005, while

8

he was locked in a windowless cell 24 hours a day with no outdoor exercise, telephone access,

9

visitation with loved ones, religious services, sunlight, fresh air, or a view of the outdoors. In count

10

three, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Arlitz, Doe 2, Hickman, Hitchcock, Marks, Murphy, Parks,

11

Prince, Shannon, Tilton, Woodford, and Yates caused and allowed Plaintiff’s medical records to be

12

falsified to fraudulently reflect a mental condition that Plaintiff did not actually suffer. In count four,

13

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Arlitz, Doe 2, Fisher, Grannis, Hickman, Hitchcock, Marks, Murphy,

14

Parks, Prince, Shannon, Tilton, Woodford, and Yates, caused and allowed Plaintiff to be and remain

15

seriously and irreparably injured and harmed as a result of being mentally, verbally, physically, and

16

sexually attacked by Defendant Prince. In count five, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Arlitz,

17

Hickman, Nelson, Prince, Puig, Tilton, Woodford, and Yates caused and allowed Plaintiff to be

18

subjected to a third inter-prison transfer in seven months, to a prison located more than 250 miles

19

away from Sacramento. In count six, Plaintiff contends that Defendants Fisher, Grannis, Hickman,

20

Parks, Shannon, Tilton, Woodford, and Yates caused and allowed Plaintiff’s inmate appeal regarding

21

this incident to be obstructed.

22

Plaintiff fails to state an equal protection claim. Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts which

23

indicate that Defendants treated him differently on the basis of being a member in a protected class, or

24

that similarly situated individuals were treated differently. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a

25

cognizable claim for relief.

26

C.

27

In count one, Plaintiff contends that Defendants Collins, Delk, Grannis, Hickman, Negrete,

28

Retaliation

Parks, Shannon, Tilton, Woodford, and Yates, deprived Plaintiff of his personal property in retaliation
6

1

for protected conduct by the First Amendment. In count two, Plaintiff contends that Defendants

2

Arlitz, Does One and Two, Hickman, Hitchcock, Parks, Prince, Shannon, Tilton, Woodford, and

3

Yates, deprived and/or denied Plaintiff of his doctor prescribed psychiatric medication from August

4

23, 2005 to September 4, 2005, while he was locked inside a windowless cell 24 hours a day with no

5

outdoor exercise, telephone access, visitation with loved ones, religious services, sunlight, fresh air, or

6

a view of the outdoors from August 23, 2005 to September 8, 2005. In count three, Plaintiff contends

7

Defendants Arlitz, Doe 2, Hickman, Hitchcock, Marks, Murphy, Parks, Prince, Shannon, Tilton,

8

Woodford, and Yates caused and/or allowed Plaintiff’s medical records to be falsified to fraudulently

9

reflect a mental condition that Plaintiff did not actually suffer in retaliation for protected conduct

10

under the First Amendment. In count four, Plaintiff contends Defendants Arlitz, Doe 2, Fisher,

11

Grannis, Hickman, Hitchcok, Marks, Murphy, Parks, Prince, Shannon, Tilton, Woodford, and Yates,

12

caused and/or allowed Plaintiff to remain seriously and irreparably injured and harmed as a result of

13

being mentally, verbally, physically, and sexually attacked by Defendant Prince in retaliation in

14

violation of the First Amendment. In count five, Plaintiff contends that Defendants Arlitz, Hickman,

15

Nelson, Prince, Puig, Tilton, Woodford, and Yates caused and/or allowed Plaintiff to be and remain

16

subjected to a third inter-prison in seven months, to a prison located more than 250 miles away from

17

Sacramento in retaliation. In count six, Defendants Fisher, Grannis, Hickman, Parks, Shannon, Tilton,

18

Woodford, and Yates, caused and/or allowed Plaintiff’s inmate grievance regarding the alleged

19

misconduct.

20

“Prisoners have a First Amendment right to file grievances against prison officials and to be

21

free from retaliation for doing so.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing

22

Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009)). Also protected by the First Amendment is the

23

right to pursue civil rights litigation in federal court without retaliation. Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d

24

1090, 1104 (9th Cir. 2011). “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation

25

entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an

26

inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the

27

inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a

28

legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005).
7

1

Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim for retaliation. Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient

2

factual support that any adverse action was because of Plaintiff’s exercise of his First Amendment

3

rights and/or that the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. As to

4

causation, Plaintiff’s conclusory allegation that “Defendants had reason and the means to become, and

5

became, personally made aware of the past and recent protected conduct by Plaintiff and his mother

6

prior to acting as described[,]” is insufficient factual support to give rise to a claim for retaliation.

7

Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim for retaliation.

8

D.

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

9

In count one, Plaintiff contends that Defendants Collins, Delk, Grannis, Hickman, Negrete,

10

Parks, Shannon, Tilton, Woodford, and Yates, deprived Plaintiff of his personal property in violation

11

of his right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment. In count two, Plaintiff contends that

12

Defendants Arlitz, Does One and Two, Hickman, Hitchcock, Parks, Prince, Shannon, Tilton,

13

Woodford, and Yates, deprived and/or denied Plaintiff of his doctor prescribed psychiatric medication

14

from August 23, 2005 to September 4, 2005, while he was locked inside a windowless cell 24 hours a

15

day with no outdoor exercise, telephone access, visitation with loved ones, religious services, sunlight,

16

fresh air, or a view of the outdoors from August 23, 2005 to September 8, 2005. In count three,

17

Plaintiff contends Defendants Arlitz, Doe 2, Hickman, Hitchcock, Marks, Murphy, Parks, Prince,

18

Shannon, Tilton, Woodford, and Yates caused and/or allowed Plaintiff’s medical records to be

19

falsified to fraudulently reflect a mental condition that Plaintiff did not actually suffer in violation of

20

his right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment. In count four, Plaintiff contends Defendants

21

Arlitz, Doe 2, Fisher, Grannis, Hickman, Hitchcok, Marks, Murphy, Parks, Prince, Shannon, Tilton,

22

Woodford, and Yates, caused and/or allowed Plaintiff to remain seriously and irreparably injured and

23

harmed as a result of being mentally, verbally, physically, and sexually attacked by Defendant Prince.

24

In count five, Plaintiff contends that Defendants Arlitz, Hickman, Nelson, Prince, Puig, Tilton,

25

Woodford, and Yates caused and/or allowed Plaintiff to be and remain subjected to a third inter-prison

26

in seven months, to a prison located more than 250 miles away from Sacramento. In count six,

27

Defendants Fisher, Grannis, Hickman, Parks, Shannon, Tilton, Woodford, and Yates, caused and/or

28

allowed Plaintiff’s inmate grievance regarding the alleged misconduct.
8

1

The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment protects prisoners

2

not only from inhumane methods of punishment but also from inhumane conditions of confinement.

3

Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,

4

847 (1994) and Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981)) (quotation marks omitted). While

5

conditions of confinement may be, and often are, restrictive and harsh, they must not involve the

6

wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain. Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (citing Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347)

7

(quotation marks omitted). Thus, conditions which are devoid of legitimate penological purpose or

8

contrary to evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society violate the

9

Eighth Amendment. Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (quotation marks and citations omitted); Hope v.

10
11

Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 737 (2002); Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 346.
Prison officials have a duty to ensure that prisoners are provided adequate shelter, food,

12

clothing, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety, Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir.

13

2000) (quotation marks and citations omitted), but not every injury that a prisoner sustains while in

14

prison represents a constitutional violation, Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (quotation marks omitted). To

15

maintain an Eighth Amendment claim, a prisoner must show that prison officials were deliberately

16

indifferent to a substantial risk of harm to his health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847; Thomas v.

17

Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150-51 (9th Cir. 2010); Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 812-14 (9th Cir.

18

2009); Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045; Johnson, 217 F.3d at 731; Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th

19

Cir. 1998).

20

While the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles Plaintiff to medical

21

care, the Eighth Amendment is violated only when a prison official acts with deliberate indifference to

22

an inmate’s serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012), overruled

23

in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 2014); Wilhelm v.

24

Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006).

25

Plaintiff “must show (1) a serious medical need by demonstrating that failure to treat [his] condition

26

could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,” and (2) that

27

“the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing

28

Jett, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)). Deliberate indifference is shown by “(a) a purposeful act
9

1

or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need, and (b) harm caused by the

2

indifference.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). The requisite state of mind

3

is one of subjective recklessness, which entails more than ordinary lack of due care. Snow, 681 F.3d

4

at 985 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122.

5

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations fail to give rise to a cognizable claim for cruel and

6

unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment based on his conditions of confinement

7

upon his transfer to PVSP. Plaintiff’s temporary denial of outdoor exercise, from August 23, 2005 to

8

September 4, 2005, and denial of other privileges, such as telephone, visitation, religious services,

9

fresh air and sunlight, from August 23, 2005, to September 8, 2005, does not give to a constitutional

10

violation under the Eighth Amendment, particularly given the lack of medical effects. See, e.g., May

11

v. Baldwin, 109 F.3d 557, 565 (9th Cir. 1997) (temporary deprivation of 21 days without outdoor

12

exercise with no medical effects not a substantial deprivation); Hayward v. Procunier, 629 F.2d 599,

13

603 (9th Cir. 1980) (30-day emergency lockdown period was an unusual circumstance justifying

14

denial of outdoor exercise).

15

Although Plaintiff contends that false and fraudulent information was placed in his file

16

reflecting a mental condition for which he does not suffer, the false reports themselves do not subject

17

Plaintiff to any substantial risk of serious harm that would constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

18

Nor does Plaintiff provide any factual basis, whatsoever, to support his claim that he was mentally,

19

verbally, physically, and sexually attacked by Defendant Prince. See Woodrum v. Woodward County,

20

Okla., 866 F.2d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1989) (vague and conclusory allegations with no supporting

21

factual averments are insufficient to support a claim under § 1983). Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to

22

state a cognizable claim for relief.

23

E.

Due Process

24

Plaintiff challenges the destruction of his personal property. Prisoners have a protected interest

25

in their personal property. Hansen v. May, 502 F.2d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 1974). However, while an

26

authorized, intentional deprivation of property is actionable under the Due Process Clause, see Hudson

27

v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532, n.13 (1984) (citing Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 435-

28

436 (1982)); Quick v. Jones, 754 F.2d 1521, 1524 (9th Cir. 1985), “[a]n unauthorized intentional
10

1

deprivation of property by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural

2

requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation

3

remedy for the loss is available,” Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533.

4

Plaintiff allegation that Defendants deprived and/or denied his property in direct violation of

5

his constitutional rights is an allegation of an intentional and unauthorized deprivation. Therefore,

6

Plaintiff’s remedy would be found under California law. Furthermore, in the event that the

7

deprivation was authorized and therefore actionable under section 1983, Plaintiff has not alleged any

8

facts suggesting he was deprived of due process. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable

9

claim for relief.

10

F.

Inmate Grievances

11

“The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects persons against deprivations of

12

life, liberty, or property; and those who seek to invoke its procedural protection must establish that one

13

of these interests is at stake.” Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005). Plaintiff does not have

14

a protected liberty interest in the processing his appeals, and therefore, he cannot pursue a claim for

15

denial of due process with respect to the handling or resolution of his appeals. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334

16

F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988)).

17

Plaintiff raises several contentions regarding the handling, processing, and/or denying of his

18

inmate grievances. As just stated, the failure to grant an inmate’s appeal in the prison administrative

19

appeal system does not amount to a due process violation, and Plaintiff has no federal constitutional

20

right to a properly functioning appeal system. Therefore, an incorrect decision on an administrative

21

appeal or failure to process an appeal in a particular way does not amount to a violation of his right to

22

due process. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a due process claim based on the inmate appeals

23

process.

24

IV.

25

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

26

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

27

granted. Plaintiff was previously given leave to amend on three separate occasions, further leave to

28

amend would be futile. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203
11

1

F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, this action is HEREBY DISMISSED, with prejudice,

2

for failure to state a claim, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated:

7

February 6, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12