Stribling v. E. Wilson et al
Filing
13
ORDER Directing Clerk of Court to Randomly Assign District Judge; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Dismissal of Action for Failure to State a Claim, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/14/18. Case is assigned to District Judge Anthony W. Ishii and Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. The New Case No. is: 1:17-cv-01275-AWI-BAM. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
AARON LAMONT STRIBLING,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
Case No. 1:17-cv-01275-BAM (PC)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE
v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
E. WILSON,
15
Defendant.
(ECF No. 1)
16
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
17
Plaintiff Aaron Lamont Stribling (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
18
19
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was
20
transferred to this Court from the United States District Court for the Central District of
21
California on September 25, 2017. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff’s complaint, filed September 18, 2017,
22
is currently before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 1.)
23
I.
Screening Requirement and Standard
24
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
25
governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
26
§ 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous
27
or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary
28
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C.
1
1
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
2
3
entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but
4
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
5
statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic
6
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true,
7
courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572
8
F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient
9
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 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv.,
12
572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not
13
sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard.
14
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
15
II.
Plaintiff’s Allegations
Plaintiff is currently housed at California State Prison, Sacramento (“CSP-SAC”). The
16
17
complaint’s allegations concern events that transpired at California State Prison, Corcoran, at the
18
time of Plaintiff’s transfer to Folsom State Prison. Plaintiff names Correctional Officer E. Wilson
19
as the sole defendant.
20
Plaintiff alleges that on September 1, 2015, R&R (Receiving & Release) Officer E.
21
Wilson at Corcoran State Prison included on a property transfer receipt that Plaintiff was
22
transferring to Folsom State Prison on September 2, 2015 with two boxes and one boxed
23
television. However, Plaintiff and Defendant Wilson had a falling out over Plaintiff’s French
24
braids not coming out, and Defendant Wilson told Plaintiff “I bet you won’t get your property
25
now.”
26
When Plaintiff arrived at Folsom, he was told by R&R Officer W. Pomilia that his
27
property did not accompany him, and showed him a property transfer receipt with two boxes of
28
property scratched out and his one boxed television converted to one bag of property. Plaintiff
2
1
filed a grievance for the crime of theft and insisted that his property be returned.
2
Plaintiff alleges that on September 2, 2015, Defendant Wilson also falsified state
3
documents by stating that the bus could not fit Plaintiff’s two boxes of property and they had to
4
be sent on September 24, 2015 instead. However, no signature from a receiving institution
5
officer was on the document.
6
On February 9, 2016, Plaintiff alleges that he found out that his property was stolen, and
7
Plaintiff could not prove which items were stolen because Defendant Wilson made sure all of
8
Plaintiff’s receipts and other evidence for proof of purchase were also stolen.
9
10
Plaintiff requests compensatory and punitive damages.
III.
Discussion
11
A.
Deprivation of Property
12
Plaintiff complains that his property was stolen by Defendant Wilson. While an
13
authorized, intentional deprivation of property is actionable under the Due Process Clause, neither
14
a negligent nor intentional unauthorized deprivation of property by a prison official is actionable
15
if a meaningful post-deprivation remedy is available for the loss. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S.
16
517, 533 (1984); Quick v. Jones, 754 F.2d 1521, 1524 (9th Cir. 1984).
17
As Plaintiff alleges that his personal property was stolen by Defendant Wilson, this is an
18
unauthorized, intentional deprivation. Due Process is therefore satisfied if there is a meaningful
19
post-deprivation remedy available to him. Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533. Plaintiff has an adequate
20
post-deprivation remedy available under California law. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816–17
21
(9th Cir. 1994) (citing Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 810–895). Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a
22
cognizable claim for the alleged deprivation of his personal property. This deficiency cannot be
23
cured by amendment.
24
B.
State Law Claims
25
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), in any civil action in which the district court has original
26
jurisdiction, the district court “shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims in the
27
action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under
28
Article III,” except as provided in subsections (b) and (c). The Supreme Court has cautioned that
3
1
“if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, . . . the state claims should be dismissed as well.”
2
United Mine Workers of Amer. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). Although the court may
3
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable
4
claim for relief under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
5
In this instance, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable federal claim for relief under 42 U.S.C.
6
§ 1983. Liberally construing allegations in the complaint, Plaintiff may be able to pursue a state
7
law claim. However, as Plaintiff has failed to state any cognizable federal claims in this action, it
8
is recommended that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state
9
law causes of action, and that Plaintiff’s state law claims be dismissed without prejudice. See 28
10
U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
11
IV.
Conclusion and Recommendation
Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. The deficiencies of
12
13
Plaintiff’s complaint cannot be cured be amendment, and thus leave to amend is not warranted.
14
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).
15
16
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a
district judge to this action.
17
Further, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s federal claims be dismissed
18
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and
19
1915A and that Plaintiff’s state law claims be dismissed without prejudice.
20
These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge
21
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen
22
(14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written
23
objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
24
Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the
25
specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual
26
///
27
///
28
///
4
1
findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v.
2
Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
3
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
May 14, 2018
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?