Trujillo v. Ruiz et al

Filing 14

ORDER DENYING 13 Motion for Leave to Amend, Without Prejudice, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/30/2014. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:14-cv-00975-GSA-PC

GUILLERMO TRUJILLO,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO AMEND, WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(Doc. 13.)

vs.
C/O RUIZ, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

I.

BACKGROUND

20

Guillermo Trujillo (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

21

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint

22

commencing this action on June 23, 2014. (Doc. 1.) On August 22, 2014 and September 2,

23

2014, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

24

(Docs. 10, 11.) On November 9, 2014, the court issued an order dismissing the Complaint for

25

failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (Doc. 11.) On December 1, 2014, Plaintiff filed

26

the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 12.)

27
28

On December 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint.
(Doc. 13.)
1

1

II.

RULE 15(a) – LEAVE TO AMEND

2

A.

3

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the

4

party=s pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served.

5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written

6

consent of the adverse party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Id. Here,

7

because Plaintiff has already amended the complaint once, Plaintiff requires leave of court to

8

file a Second Amended Complaint.

Legal Standard

9

ARule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend >shall be freely given when justice so

10

requires.=@ AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 445 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir.

11

2006) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). However, courts Aneed not grant leave to amend where

12

the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an

13

undue delay in the litigation; or (4) is futile.@ Id. The factor of A>[u]ndue delay by itself . . . is

14

insufficient to justify denying a motion to amend.=@ Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan,

15

Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712,13 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58

16

(9th Cir. 1999)).

17

B.

18

Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint to add allegations that sometime after November

19

1, 2013, C/O Boyd did an inventory of Plaintiff’s personal property and “intentionally lost or

20

threw away [his] personal property as a result of [C/O Boyd’s] negligence (sic) failure to act

21

with reasonable care.”

22

submitted a 602 appeal concerning this matter on November 22, 2013. (Id., Exhibits.)

Plaintiff’s Motion

(Motion, Doc. 13 at 2-3 ¶4.)

Plaintiff submits evidence that he

23

Property Claims

24

Prisoners have a protected interest in their personal property. Hansen v. May, 502 F.2d

25

728, 730 (9th Cir. 1974). While an authorized, intentional deprivation of property is actionable

26

under the Due Process Clause, see Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532, n.13, 104 S.Ct. 3194

27

(1984) (citing Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 435-36, 102 S.Ct. 1148 (1982));

28

Quick v. Jones, 754 F.2d 1521, 1524 (9th Cir. 1985), A[a]n unauthorized intentional deprivation
2

1

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

2

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

California Law provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for any property

5

deprivations. See Cal. Gov't Code '' 810-895; Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th

6

Cir. 1994). California=s Tort Claims Act requires that a tort claim against a public entity or its

7

employees be presented to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board,

8

formerly known as the State Board of Control, no more than six months after the cause of

9

action accrues.

Cal. Gov=t Code '' 905.2, 910, 911.2, 945.4, 950-950.2 (West 2006).

10

Presentation of a written claim, and action on or rejection of the claim are conditions precedent

11

to suit. State v. Superior Court of Kings County (Bodde), 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1245, 90 P.3d 116,

12

124, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 534, 543 (2004); Mangold v. California Pub. Utils. Comm=n, 67 F.3d 1470,

13

1477 (9th Cir. 1995). To state a tort claim against a public employee, a plaintiff must allege

14

compliance with the Tort Claims Act. State v. Superior Court, 32 Cal.4th at 1245, 90 P.3d at

15

124, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d at 543; Mangold, 67 F.3d at 1477; Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police

16

Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 627 (9th Cir. 1988).

17

Discussion

18

Plaintiff alleges that C/O Boyd intentionally and negligently lost or discarded his

19

personal property, which indicates that the deprivation of property was intentional and

20

unauthorized. Thus, Plaintiff=s remedy would be found under California law. Plaintiff has not

21

submitted evidence that he complied with California’s Tort Claims Act by presenting a written

22

claim concerning this property claim which was acted on or rejected.1 Therefore, the court

23

cannot determine whether it would be futile for Plaintiff to bring this property claim in a

24

Second Amended Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend shall be

25

///

26
1

27
28

In the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff submits evidence that he filed claims with
California’s Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board (VCGCB). (Doc. 12 at 8-11, 18.) However,
there is no evidence that the VCGCB claims concerned his loss of property in November 2013, or that final action
was taken on the claims.
3

1

denied, without prejudice to renewal of the motion showing evidence of compliance with

2

California’s Tort Claims Act.

3

III.

CONCLUSION

4

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s motion to amend the

5

complaint, filed on December 22, 2014, is DENIED, without prejudice to renewal of the

6

motion showing evidence of compliance with California’s Tort Claims Act, as discussed in this

7

order.

8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 30, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
4