Overton v. Warden of CMF Vacaville

Filing 15

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 5/7/12 ORDERING that 13 Findings and Recommendations are VACATED; RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

MICHAEL L. OVERTON,

11
12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,

No. 2:11-cv-1646 LKK JFM (HC)

vs.
WARDEN, CMF VACAVILLE,

ORDER AND

Defendant.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
/

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

17

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

18

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

19

On December 9, 2011, this court filed findings and recommendations herein

20

which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the

21

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed

22

objections to the findings and recommendations.

23

In the December 9, 2011 findings and recommendations, this court recommended

24

dismissal of this action without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with an order filed

25

October 11, 2011 directing him to, within thirty days, either pay the filing fee for this action or

26
1

1

file an application to proceed in forma pauperis, and to file an amended complaint.1 On

2

December 29, 2011, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. An amended

3

complaint is attached to the objections. Plaintiff has not complied with the order to pay the filing

4

fee for this action or file an in forma pauperis application.

5

After review of the record, and good cause appearing, this court finds for the

6

reasons set forth infra that plaintiff’s first amended complaint fails to state a cognizable claim for

7

that relief. Accordingly, the December 9, 2011 findings and recommendations will be vacated

8

and the court will recommend dismissal of this action for failure to state a claim upon which

9

relief may be granted.

10

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

11

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

12

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised

13

claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be

14

granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28

15

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

16

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.

17

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28

18

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

19

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

20

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

21

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

22

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

23
24
25
26

1

The October 11, 2011 order was preceded by an order filed July 29, 2011 requiring the
same action by plaintiff. The July 29, 2011 order was not complied with, resulting in findings
and recommendations filed on September 13, 2011, recommending dismissal of the action
without prejudice. Those findings and recommendations were vacated by the magistrate judge in
the order filed October 11, 2011.
2

1

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and

2

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the

3

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic

4

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355

5

U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must

6

contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain

7

factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic,

8

id. However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘“give the

9

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”’” Erickson

10

v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (quoting Bell, 127 S.Ct. at 1964, in turn

11

quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). In reviewing a complaint under this

12

standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, id.,

13

and construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416

14

U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

15

In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants, a correctional

16

counselor, a correctional officer, and a trust officer at California Medical Facility, stole money

17

from plaintiff’s inmate trust account statement. Documents appended to plaintiff’s amended

18

complaint, which are a part thereof for all purposes, show that in July 2009, plaintiff received a

19

settlement check in the amount of $15,238.68, which was deposited into his inmate trust account.

20

In administrative grievance proceedings, plaintiff alleged that $6777.04 was missing from his

21

trust account. In response to the grievance, prison officials found that plaintiff had spent the

22

settlement funds through a variety of purchases and requests for checks. Those transactions are

23

documented in an inmate statement report dated May 17, 2010, a copy of which is appended to

24

the amended complaint.

25

/////

26

/////
3

It appears from review of the exhibits appended to plaintiff’s amended complaint2

1
2

that his claim is without factual foundation. Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has

3

held that “an unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does not

4

constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

5

Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available.” Hudson v.

6

Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). Thus, where the state provides a meaningful postdeprivation

7

remedy, only authorized, intentional deprivations constitute actionable violations of the Due

8

Process Clause. An authorized deprivation is one carried out pursuant to established state

9

procedures, regulations, or statutes. Piatt v. McDougall, 773 F.2d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 1985);

10

see also Knudson v. City of Ellensburg, 832 F.2d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 1987).

11

In the instant case, plaintiff has not alleged any facts which suggest that the

12

deprivation was authorized. The California Legislature has provided a remedy for tort claims

13

against public officials in the California Government Code, §§ 900, et seq. Since plaintiff has

14

not attempted to seek redress in the state system, he cannot sue in federal court on the claim that

15

the state deprived him of property without due process of the law. This action should be

16

dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

17
18

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the findings and
recommendations filed December 9, 2011, are vacated; and

19
20

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

21

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

22

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

23

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

24

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

25
2

26

Exhibits appended to a complaint are a part thereof for all purposes. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 10(c).
4

1

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

2

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

3

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

4

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

5

DATED: May 7, 2012.

6
7
8
9
10

12
over1646.57sec

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
5