Forbes v. Youngblood

Filing 11

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss Complaint with Prejduice for Failure/Inability to State a Claim and Impose a Strike signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 02/25/2016. Referred to Judge Drozd; Objections to F&R due by 3/31/2016.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT FORBES,

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

14

DONNEY YOUNGBLOOD,

15

Defendant.

16
17

Case No. 1:15-cv-01743-DAD-JLT (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DISMISS COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE
FOR FAILURE/INABILITY TO STATE A
CLAIM AND IMPOSE A STRIKE PER 28 U.S.C.
§1915(g).
(Doc. 1)
30-DAY DEADLINE

In this action, Plaintiff complains that he was given the wrong property pouch when he

18

was released on bail and that his property pouch was given to someone else. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff

19

seeks redress for the loss of the items in his property pouch and for the exposure of his personal

20

information by Kern County Jail staff. For the reasons discussed herein, Plaintiff fails and is

21

unable to state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 such that this action should be

22

DISMISSED with prejudice.

23

I. Screening Requirement

24

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

25

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

26

complaint or portion thereof in which a prisoner raises claims that are legally frivolous,

27

malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief

28

from a defendant who is immune from such relief must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. §
1

1

1915A(b)(1),(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).
Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or

2
3

immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Wilder v. Virginia Hosp.

4

Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983 is not itself a source of

5

substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights conferred

6

elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989). To state a claim under § 1983, a

7

plaintiff must meet two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of

8

the United States was violated and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting

9

under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda

10

Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).

11

A.

12

Plaintiff alleges that he was released from custody in the Kern County Jail on January 26,

Summary of the Complaint

13

2015. As he was being released, they discovered that his personal property pouch had been

14

mistakenly given to another individual who had been released six days prior. Plaintiff alleges that

15

the pouch contained his driver’s license, social security card, express bank card, green dot card,

16

medical card, $18.00, seven certification cards, a picture of his grandparents and father who are

17

all now deceased, and the keys to his vehicle. Plaintiff states that he filed a claim with the

18

County’s Risk Management Department and while they acknowledge the mistake, they have only

19

offered him $100 in remuneration. Plaintiff alleges that this is insufficient for what basically

20

amounts to disclosure of all of his personal/identity information and that he is unable to take

21

necessary steps to protect his information/identity since he is now in the custody of the California

22

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Plaintiff seeks monetary, declaratory, and

23

injunctive relief.

24

Plaintiff may be able to pursue his allegations under state law, but as discussed in greater

25

detail below, they do not rise to the level of a cognizable claim under § 1983 such that this action

26

should be DISMISSED with prejudice.

27

///

28

///

1
2

B.

Pleading Requirements
1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)

3

"Rule 8(a)'s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

4

exceptions," none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534

5

U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). A complaint must contain "a short and plain

6

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a).

7

"Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and

8

the grounds upon which it rests." Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512.

9

Detailed factual allegations are not required, but A[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a

10

cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.@ Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

11

U.S. 662, 678 (2009), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).

12

Plaintiff must set forth Asufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to >state a claim that is

13

plausible on its face.=@ Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Factual

14

allegations are accepted as true, but legal conclusions are not. Iqbal. at 678; see also Moss v. U.S.

15

Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009); Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-557.

16

While Aplaintiffs [now] face a higher burden of pleadings facts . . . ,@ Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft,

17

580 F.3d 949, 977 (9th Cir. 2009), the pleadings of pro se prisoners are still construed liberally

18

and are afforded the benefit of any doubt. Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir.

19

2013); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). However, "the liberal pleading

20

standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff's factual allegations," Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330

21

n.9 (1989), "a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements

22

of the claim that were not initially pled," Bruns v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251,

23

1257 (9th Cir. 1997) quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982), and courts

24

are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences, Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677,

25

681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The “sheer possibility that a

26

defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a

27

defendant’s liability” fall short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129

28

S. Ct. at 1949; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. Plaintiff must identify specific facts supporting the

1

existence of substantively plausible claims for relief, Johnson v. City of Shelby, __ U.S. __, __,

2

135 S.Ct. 346, 347 (2014) (per curiam) (citation omitted).

3

II.

4

Analysis
A.

5

Plaintiff's Claims
1. Deprivation of Property

6

Authorized, intentional deprivations of property are actionable under the Due Process

7

Clause. see Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532, n. 13 (1984); Quick v. Jones, 754 F.2d 1521,

8

1524 (9th Cir. 1985) However, the Due Process Clause is violated only when the agency

9

“prescribes and enforces forfeitures of property without underlying statutory authority and

10

competent procedural protections,” Nevada Dept. of Corrections v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1019

11

(9th Cir. 2011) (citing Vance v. Barrett, 345 F.3d 1083, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003)) (internal quotations

12

omitted). There is no cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an unauthorized deprivation of

13

property, either intentional or negligent, by a government employee if a meaningful state post-

14

deprivation remedy for the loss is available. Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533. California law provides an

15

adequate post-deprivation remedy for any property deprivations. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813,

16

816-817 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Cal. Gov=t Code '' 810-895). Here, Plaintiff admits that there

17

was a procedure in place and he filed a claim related to his missing property. Indeed, he alleges

18

that he filed the claim and the entity offered him payment. The fact that he disagrees with the

19

amount offered does not translate this action into a constitutional claim. Thus, Plaintiff’s

20

allegations that his property was mistakenly given to the wrong person is not cognizable under

21

section 1983 and may not be pursued in this court.

22

2. State Law Claims

23

Plaintiff may be able to pursue this action under California law in state court. However,

24

the Court is unable to adjudicate the state law claims absent federal jurisdiction.

25

III.

26

CONCLUSION
Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a cognizable claim under federal law against any of the

27

named Defendants. Given the nature of Plaintiff’s allegations, the deficiencies in Plaintiff's

28

pleading are not capable of being cured through amendment, Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202,

1
2
3
4

1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012), and Plaintiff should not be given leave to amend his section 1983 claims.
Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this entire action be dismissed with
prejudice and that this dismissal count as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §1915(g).
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

5

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within 30

6

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written

7

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned AObjections to Magistrate Judge=s

8

Findings and Recommendations.@ Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

9

specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834,

10

839 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 25, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28