(PC) Black v. Hanzak et al

Filing 11

ORDER ADOPTING 9 Findings and Recommendations, and DISMISSING Action, with Prejudice, for Failure to State a Cognizable Claim for Relief signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/7/2019. CASE CLOSED.(Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BOBBY L. BLACK,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
J. HANZAK, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00238-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING
ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE
TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR
RELIEF
(ECF Nos. 1, 9)

16
17

Plaintiff Bobby L. Black is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

18

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States

19

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On June 5, 2019, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations

21

recommending that this action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim upon

22

which relief may be granted. (ECF No. 9.) The findings and recommendations were served on

23

Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days

24

after service. (Id. at 6-7.) Plaintiff timely filed objections to the findings and recommendations on

25

July 8, 2019. (ECF No. 10.)

26

In his objections, Plaintiff contends that he has alleged a cognizable claim for deprivation

27

of personal property in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment against Defendant Correctional

28

Officer J. Willis because the allegations in his complaint establish that Defendant Willis personally
1

1

participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s property rights without first providing due process of

2

law. However, while an authorized intentional deprivation of property is actionable under the Due

3

Process Clause, an unauthorized intentional or negligent deprivation of property does not constitute

4

a violation of the procedural component of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

5

so long as the state provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S.

6

517, 532-33 (1984); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994). Here, since Plaintiff’s

7

allegations only establish an unauthorized deprivation of his personal property and Plaintiff has an

8

adequate post-deprivation remedy under California law, Plaintiff has failed to allege a cognizable

9

due process claim for the unauthorized deprivation of his personal property against Defendant

10

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

11

objections are overruled.

12

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a

13

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s

14

objections, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations are

15

supported by the record and by proper analysis.

16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

17

1.

18
19

in full;
2.

20
21

The findings and recommendations issued on June 5, 2019, (ECF No. 9), are adopted

This action is dismissed, with prejudice, due to Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted; and

3.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 7, 2019
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2