Callender v. Ramm et al
Filing
10
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 05/18/17 granting 9 Motion to Proceed IFP. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. All fees shall be paid in accordance with the court's CDC order filed concurrently herewith. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days of service of this order. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
VINCENT ANTHONY CALLENDER,
12
No. 2:16-cv-00694 JAM AC P
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
J. RAMM, et. al.,
15
ORDER
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42
17
18
U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing a complaint (ECF No. 1), plaintiff has filed an application to
19
proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. ECF No. 9.
20
I.
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
The court has reviewed plaintiff’s application and finds that it makes the showing required
21
22
by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency
23
having custody of plaintiff to collect and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing
24
fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2).
25
26
II.
Screening Requirements
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
27
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
28
court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally
1
1
“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek
2
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).
3
A claim “is [legally] frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”
4
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th
5
Cir. 1984). “[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably
6
meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Jackson v. Arizona,
7
885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation and internal quotations omitted), superseded by statute
8
on other grounds as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000); Neitzke, 490
9
U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded,
10
11
has an arguable legal and factual basis. Id.
“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the
12
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of
13
what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
14
U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
15
However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more
16
than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual
17
allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. (citations
18
omitted). “[T]he pleading must contain something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that
19
merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action.” Id. (alteration in original)
20
(quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216 (3d
21
ed. 2004)).
22
“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
23
relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
24
Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
25
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
26
misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 556). In reviewing a complaint
27
under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question,
28
Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trs., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), as well as construe the pleading
2
1
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v.
2
McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).
3
III.
4
Screening Order
Plaintiff alleges that the named defendants failed to adequately “secure and store” his
5
personal property on July 16, 2014. ECF No. 1 at 3. He claims defendants’ actions violated his
6
due process rights and his rights under the California Department of Corrections and
7
Rehabilitations’ (CDCR) ‘Inmate Bill of Rights.’ Id. After review of the complaint, the court
8
finds that plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
9
First, plaintiff may not bring a section 1983 action against defendant CDCR. See Brown
10
v. California Dep’t. of Corr., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The district court correctly held
11
that the California Department of Corrections and the California Board of Prison Terms were
12
entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.”); Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 951 (9th Cir.
13
2004) (“State agencies . . . are not ‘persons’ within the meaning of § 1983, and are therefore not
14
amenable to suit under that statute.”).
15
Second, claims premised on violations of the ‘Inmate Bill of Rights’ or other prison
16
regulations are not cognizable in a section 1983 action. See Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087,
17
1092 (9th Cir. 2009) (“All § 1983 claims must be premised on a constitutional violation.”); see
18
also Lamon v. Cate, No. 1:09-cv-02220-OWW-SMS (PC), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24469, 2011
19
WL 773046, *9 (E.D. Cal. February 28, 2011).
20
Third, plaintiff’s due process claim based on the alleged deprivation of his personal
21
property is not cognizable. The Ninth Circuit has held that “a negligent or intentional deprivation
22
of a prisoner’s property fails to state a claim under section 1983 if the state has an adequate post
23
deprivation remedy.” Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994). California provides
24
such a remedy. Id. (citing Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 810-895). The matter might be different if
25
plaintiff alleged that the deprivation of his property was not random or unauthorized, but instead
26
the result of some “established state procedure.” See Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S.
27
422, 435-436 (1982). Nothing in the complaint can be construed to state such a claim, however.
28
////
3
1
Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed and he will be given leave
2
to amend.
3
IV.
4
5
Leave to Amend
Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. If plaintiff chooses to file an
amended complaint it should observe the following:
6
Any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally
7
participated in a substantial way in depriving him of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v.
8
Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a
9
constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is
10
legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation).
11
It must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a).
12
Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See
13
George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
14
Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself
15
without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended
16
complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the
17
earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114
18
F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter
19
being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir.
20
1967)).
21
Finally, the court notes that any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in
22
fulfilling the above requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of
23
procedural or factual background which has no bearing on his legal claims. He should also take
24
pains to ensure that his amended complaint is as legible as possible. This refers not only to
25
penmanship, but also spacing and organization. Lengthy, unbroken paragraphs can be difficult to
26
read when handwritten and plaintiff would do well to avoid them wherever possible.
27
////
28
////
4
1
V.
2
3
Summary of the Order
You have been granted in forma pauperis status and will not have to pay the entire filing
fee immediately.
4
The court has found that your claims, as stated, are not suitable to proceed. You cannot
5
sue the CDCR itself because it is not a “person” who can be a defendant under section 1983. You
6
also cannot base a section 1983 claim on a violation of prison regulations. Finally, you cannot
7
bring a claim for loss of your personal property if the state provides some way of addressing that
8
loss under its own law.
9
10
11
12
You are being given a chance to submit an amended complaint which fixes the problems
with your claims.
VI.
Conclusion
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
13
1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 9) is granted.
14
2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected
15
in accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and
16
Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.
17
18
19
20
3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days of service of
this order.
4. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action.
DATED: May 18, 2017
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?