Flowers v. Department of Corrections

Filing 14

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas on 7/30/2014. (njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/30/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

EUREKA DIVISION

6
7

JOSEPH J. FLOWERS,
No. C 14-1641 NJV (PR)
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
v.

9

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
et al.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Defendants.
12

/

13
Plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court
14
dismissed the original complaint with leave to amend and plaintiff has filed an amended
15
complaint and a second amended complaint. (Doc. 12.) The Court will review the second
16
amended complaint. As set forth below, the Court will dismiss this case for failure to state
17
a claim upon which relief can be granted.
18
DISCUSSION
19
A.

Standard of Review

20
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners
21
seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
22
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and
23
dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may
24
be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at
25
1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
26
Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
27
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of
28
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary;

1

the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the

2

grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations

3

omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual

4

allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] to relief'

5

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

6

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief

7

above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)

8

(citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

9

plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has recently explained
the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are

12

well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine

13

whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,

14

679 (2009).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

15
16

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

17

violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the

18

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

19

B.

Plaintiff alleges that his personal property was lost and certain legal documents were

20
21
22

Legal Claims

taken.
Neither the negligent nor intentional deprivation of property states a due process

23

claim under § 1983 if the deprivation was random and unauthorized. Parratt v. Taylor, 451

24

U.S. 527, 535-44 (1981) (state employee negligently lost prisoner's hobby kit), overruled in

25

part on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31 (1986); Hudson v.

26

Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (intentional destruction of inmate's property). The

27

availability of an adequate state post-deprivation remedy, e.g. a state tort action, precludes

28
2

1

relief because it provides adequate procedural due process. King v. Massarweh, 782 F.2d

2

825, 826 (9th Cir. 1986). California law provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for

3

any property deprivations. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing

4

Cal. Gov't Code §§ 810-895). Nor is a prisoner protected by the Fourth Amendment

5

against the seizure, destruction or conversion of his property. Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F.2d

6

803, 806 (9th Cir. 1989).

7

Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. See Lewis v. Casey,

8

518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). To establish a

9

claim for any violation of the right of access to the courts, the prisoner must prove that there
was an inadequacy in the prison's legal access program that caused him an actual injury.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 350-55. To prove an actual injury, the prisoner must show that the

12

inadequacy in the prison's program hindered his efforts to pursue a non-frivolous claim

13

concerning his conviction or conditions of confinement. See id. at 354-55.

14

Plaintiff states that he was transferred out of Salinas Valley State Prison and should

15

have received five boxes of his personal property that included legal documents when he

16

arrived at the new facility.1 Plaintiff states that he eventually received the boxes but certain

17

legal documents were missing, including several witness declarations required for his

18

habeas petition, case No. C 14-0589 CW (PR). Plaintiff states that the declarations

19

discussed how others eavesdropped on Plaintiff and his attorney while they were

20

discussing his defense for his underlying criminal case. Case No. C 14-0589 CW (PR) was

21

stayed so Plaintiff could exhaust his claims. (Docket No. 9 in Case No. C 14-0589 CW

22

(PR).) Plaintiff indicated that he had recovered the lost evidence, which appeared to be

23

included in the petition. Id. The petition in No. C 14-0589 CW (PR) (Docket No. 1),

24

contains numerous declarations regarding the eavesdropping and Plaintiff states the

25

eavesdropping was addressed by the judge at his trial. Case No. C 14-0589 CW (PR) was

26
27
28

1

The named defendants in this action appear to be guards at High Desert State Prison
which is located in the Eastern District of California.
3

1

recently unstayed as plaintiff stated he had exhausted his claims.

2

In this case, Plaintiff has failed to describe an actual injury to demonstrate denial of

3

access to the courts because he was able to file timely habeas petitions in state court with

4

the necessary evidence and there were several declarations attached to his federal petition

5

regarding the eavesdropping. Plaintiff seeks money damages and for tolling in his federal

6

habeas case. This Court cannot enter an order in this civil rights case granting tolling in a

7

separate habeas corpus case. Further, Plaintiff’s habeas case has yet to be served on

8

respondent and it is not clear if tolling will be necessary. If tolling is required for the habeas

9

corpus petition to proceed, Plaintiff can present his arguments in that case. In conclusion,
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate an actual injury to support a denial of access to the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

courts claim. Because the deprivation of his property also fails to state a claim, this case is

12

dismissed.

13
14

1. This case is DISMISSED for the reasons set forth above.

15

2. The Clerk shall close the file.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19
20
21
22

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

CONCLUSION

23
24
25
26
27
28

Dated: July 30, 2014.
NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge

1
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

EUREKA DIVISION

6
7
8

Plaintiff,

9
10
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

No.1:14-CV-1641 NJV (PR)

JOSEPH J. FLOWERS,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al,
Defendants.

/

12
13

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that on July 30, 2014, I served a true and correct copy of

14

the attached by placing said copies in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed

15

below, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Joseph J. Flowers
F82065
A2-230
High Desert State Prison
P.O. Box 3030
Susanville, CA 96127
/s/ Linn Van Meter
Linn Van Meter
Administrative Law Clerk to the
Honorable Nandor J. Vadas

24
25
26
27
28
5