(PC) Black v. Hanzak et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BOBBY L. BLACK,
J. HANZAK, et al.,
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
(ECF Nos. 1, 9)
Plaintiff Bobby L. Black is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On June 5, 2019, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations
recommending that this action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim upon
which relief may be granted. (ECF No. 9.) The findings and recommendations were served on
Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days
after service. (Id. at 6-7.) Plaintiff timely filed objections to the findings and recommendations on
July 8, 2019. (ECF No. 10.)
In his objections, Plaintiff contends that he has alleged a cognizable claim for deprivation
of personal property in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment against Defendant Correctional
Officer J. Willis because the allegations in his complaint establish that Defendant Willis personally
participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s property rights without first providing due process of
law. However, while an authorized intentional deprivation of property is actionable under the Due
Process Clause, an unauthorized intentional or negligent deprivation of property does not constitute
a violation of the procedural component of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
so long as the state provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S.
517, 532-33 (1984); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994). Here, since Plaintiff’s
allegations only establish an unauthorized deprivation of his personal property and Plaintiff has an
adequate post-deprivation remedy under California law, Plaintiff has failed to allege a cognizable
due process claim for the unauthorized deprivation of his personal property against Defendant
Willis. Barnett, 31 F.3d at 816-17 (citing Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 810-895). Therefore, Plaintiff’s
objections are overruled.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s
objections, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations are
supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
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
The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 7, 2019
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
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?