Roberson v. Nuygen

Filing 8

ORDER DIRECING Clerk of Court to Randomly Assign District Judge - CASE ASSIGNED to District Judge Dale A. Drozd and Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. New Case No. 1:17-cv-00980 DAD BAM (PC); FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Dismissal of Action for Failure to State a Claim 1 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 2/11/2018: 14-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CLARENCE L. ROBERSON,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
DR. PY NGUYEN,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:17-cv-00980-BAM (PC)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
(ECF No. 1)
FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

19

Plaintiff Clarence L. Roberson (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner, proceeds pro se and in forma

20

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on July

21

24, 2017, is currently before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 1.)

22

I.

23

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

24

governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §

25

1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or

26

malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief

27

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. §

28

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Screening Requirement and Standard

1

1

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

2

entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but

3

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,

4

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell

5

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s

6

allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v.

7

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation

8

omitted).

9

To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient

10

factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the

11

misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v.

12

United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant

13

acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the

14

plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572

15

F.3d at 969.
Plaintiff’s Allegations

16

II.

17

Plaintiff is currently housed at the California Health Care Facility in Stockton, California. The

18

complaint’s allegations concern events that transpired while he was housed at CSP-Corcoran. Plaintiff

19

names Dr. Py Nuygen as the sole defendant. Plaintiff forwards a property claim and alleges as

20

follows: “Psychogist Nuygen delibertly requested to review my personal art and personal written

21

book’s and decided to steal one of my completed books and a art drawing that was for my daughter.”

22

(ECF No. 1 at p. 3) (unedited text). Plaintiff contends that he was psychologically affected because he

23

never thought she would do that, and requests monetary damages in the amount of $50,000. (Id. at pp.

24

3, 6.)

25

III.

Discussion

26

A. Deprivation of Property

27

Plaintiff complains that his personal property was stolen by Defendant Nuygen. While an

28

authorized, intentional deprivation of property is actionable under the Due Process Clause, neither a
2

1

negligent nor intentional unauthorized deprivation of property by a prison official is actionable if a

2

meaningful post-deprivation remedy is available for the loss. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533

3

(1984); Quick v. Jones, 754 F.2d 1521, 1524 (9th Cir. 1984).

4

As Plaintiff alleges that his personal property was stolen by defendant, this is an unauthorized,

5

intentional deprivation. Due Process is therefore satisfied if there is a meaningful post-deprivation

6

remedy available to him. Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533. Plaintiff has an adequate post-deprivation remedy

7

available under California law. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816–17 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Cal.

8

Gov’t Code §§ 810–895). Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim for the alleged

9

deprivation of his personal property. This deficiency cannot be cured by amendment.

10

B. State Law Claims

11

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), in any civil action in which the district court has original

12

jurisdiction, the district court “shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims in the action

13

within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III,”

14

except as provided in subsections (b) and (c). The Supreme Court has cautioned that “if the federal

15

claims are dismissed before trial, . . . the state claims should be dismissed as well.” United Mine

16

Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). Although the court may exercise

17

supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief

18

under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

19

In this instance, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable federal claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §

20

1983. Liberally construing allegations in the complaint, Plaintiff may be able to pursue a state law

21

claim. However, as Plaintiff has failed to state any cognizable federal claims in this action, it is

22

recommended that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law

23

causes of action, and that Plaintiff’s state law claims be dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. §

24

1367(c)(3).

25

IV.

26

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. The deficiencies of Plaintiff’s

27

complaint cannot be cured be amendment, and thus leave to amend is not warranted. Lopez v. Smith,

28

203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).

Conclusion and Recommendation

3

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a

1
2

district judge to this action.

3

Further, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s federal claims be dismissed for

4

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A

5

and that Plaintiff’s state law claims be dismissed without prejudice.

6

These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge

7

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14)

8

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

9

with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

10

Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

11

result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson

12

v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir.

13

1991)).

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

February 11, 2018

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4