Ramnanan v. Ali et al

Filing 19

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 4/7/15 ORDERING that the findings and recommendations filed March 10, 2015, are adopted as clarified by this order; and Defendants Ali and Rosse are dismissed. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANDRE RAMNANAN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-1441 KJM CKD P

v.

ORDER

N. ALI, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief

17
18

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided

19

by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On March 10, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were

20
21

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

22

recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the

23

findings and recommendations.

24

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

25

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court

26

finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record. Plaintiff objects to the

27

/////

28

/////
1

1

recommendation that defendants Ali and Rosse1 be dismissed from this action. The court writes

2

separately to explain why these two defendants must be dismissed without leave to amend.

3

Plaintiff alleges in his amended complaint that defendant Ali required defendants Stewart

4

and Rosse to conduct a search of plaintiff’s cell. ECF No. 12 at 3. Plaintiff alleges that defendant

5

Ali initiated, and defendants Rosse and Stewart conducted, the search because plaintiff had

6

retrieved a Top Ramen soup from a neighboring cell during defendant Ali’s workshift, which

7

defendant Ali claimed interefered with Ali’s job duties. ECF No. 12 at 4-5, 11. In order to state a

8

retaliation claim, plaintiff must allege that he engaged in conduct protected by the United States

9

Constitution and that defendants “imposed a burden” on him “‘because he exercise[d] a

10

constitutional right.’” Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1242 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Regan

11

v. Taxation with Representation of Washington, 461 U.S. 540, 545 (1983)). Plaintiff does not

12

allege that the activity he engaged in that was the basis for the alleged search, retrieving soup, is

13

protected by the United States Constitution, nor could he. Prison inmates have no constitutional

14

protection in retrieving property from another inmate’s cell. Nor does plaintiff have

15

constitutional protection against an unreasonable search of his cell, or intentional unauthorized

16

deprivation of his personal property. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984). For this

17

reason, plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim against either defendant Ali or defendant

18

Rosse, and the defect in his claim against these defendants cannot be cured by amendment.

19

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

20

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 10, 2015, are adopted as clarified by

21

this order; and

22
23

2. Defendants Ali and Rosse are dismissed.
DATED: April 7, 2015.

24
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27

1

Defendant Rosse is also referred to as defendant Ross in the amended complaint. See, e.g., ECF
No. 12 at 4.

28
2