Ruiz v. Curry

Filing 16

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Dismissal of Action for Failure to State a Cognizable Claim for Relief, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 3/8/18. Referred to Judge Drozd. Objections to F&R Due Within 21-Days. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROGELIO MAY RUIZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
J. CURRY,
Defendant.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:17-cv-01454-DAD-SAB (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
[ECF No. 13]

Plaintiff Rogelio May Ruiz is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed March 2, 2018.

20

I.

21

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

“frivolous or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[]

26

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

27

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

28

to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare
1

1

recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”

2

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555

3

(2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the

4

deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).

5

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally

6

construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121

7

(9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible,

8

which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named

9

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service,

10

572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not

11

sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability” falls short of satisfying

12

the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

13

II.

14

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

15

On December 3, 2013, Plaintiff was arrested and placed in the hole. Defendant J. Curry lost all

16

of Plaintiff’s property and falsified a property list with Plaintiff’s signature. When Plaintiff asked

17

Curry for his property he stated he didn’t know where it was.

18

III.

19

DISCUSSION

20

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution

21

protects Plaintiff from being deprived of property without due process of law, Wolff v. McDonnell,

22

418 U.S. 539, 5563 (1974), and Plaintiff has a protected interest in his personal property, Hansen v.

23

May, 502 F.2d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 1974). Authorized, intentional deprivations of property are

24

actionable under the Due Process Clause. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532, n.13 (1984);

25

Quick v. Jones, 754 F.2d 1521, 1524 (9th Cir. 1985). However, the Due Process Clause is not violated

26

by the random, unauthorized deprivation of property so long as the state provides an adequate post-

27

deprivation remedy. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813,

28

816-17 (9th Cir. 1994). Plaintiff has an adequate post-deprivation remedy under California law and
2

1

therefore, he may not pursue a due process claim arising out of the unlawful confiscation of his

2

personal property. Barnett, 31 F.3d at 816-17 (citing Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 810-895). Thus, Plaintiff’s

3

property claim may be cognizable under state law, but such a claim must be brought in state court

4

rather than in federal court.

5

As with Plaintiff original complaint, Plaintiff has alleged an unauthorized deprivation of his

6

personal and legal property, and Plaintiff has an adequate post-deprivation remedy under California

7

law and therefore, he may not pursue a due process claim arising out of the unlawful confiscation of

8

his personal property. Barnett, 31 F.3d at 816-17 (citing Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 810-895). Accordingly,

9

Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable constitutional claim based on the alleged confiscation of his

10

personal property.

11

IV.

12

RECOMMENDATION

13

Plaintiff was previously notified of the applicable legal standards and the deficiencies in his

14

pleading, and despite guidance from the Court, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is largely identical

15

to the original complaint.

16

complaint, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff is unable to allege any additional facts that would

17

support a claim for cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and further

18

amendment would be futile. See Hartmann v. CDCR, 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013) (“A district

19

court may not deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile.”) Based on the nature of the

20

deficiencies at issue, the Court finds that further leave to amend is not warranted. Lopez v. Smith, 203

21

F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th. Cir. 2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446-1449 (9th Cir. 1987).

22
23
24

Based upon the allegations in Plaintiff’s original and first amended

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the instant action be dismissed
for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief, without further leave to amend.
This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge

25

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one (21)

26

days after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file written

27

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

28

Findings and Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the
3

1

specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-

2

39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated:

6

March 8, 2018
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4