Flowers v. Department of Corrections

Filing 7

ORDER Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas on 5/23/2014. (njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2014)

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

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendant.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

v.

9

/
12
13
14

Plaintiff has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has
been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 6.)

15
16
17

DISCUSSION
A.

Standard of Review
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

18

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

19

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and

20

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

21

be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at

22

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

23

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

24

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of

25

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary;

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has recently explained

7

the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the

8

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

9

well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine
whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

12
13

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

14

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

15

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

16

B.

17
18
19

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

taken while he was incarcerated.
Neither the negligent nor intentional deprivation of property states a due process

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28
2

1

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

2

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

3

803, 806 (9th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot state a constitutional claim for

4

deprivation of personal property.

5

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

6

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

7

claim for any violation of the right of access to the courts, the prisoner must prove that there

8

was an inadequacy in the prison's legal access program that caused him an actual injury.

9

See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 350-55. To prove an actual injury, the prisoner must show that the
inadequacy in the prison's program hindered his efforts to pursue a non-frivolous claim

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

legal documents were missing including several witness declarations for his habeas

16

petition, case No. C 14-0589 CW (PR). Case No. C 14-0589 CW (PR) was stayed so

17

petitioner could exhaust his claims as he indicated that he had recovered the lost evidence

18

which appeared to be included in the petition. See Docket No. 9 in Case No. C 14-0589

19

CW (PR).

20

In this case, plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient allegations that he has suffered

21

an actual injury to show a denial of access to the courts. His habeas case was stayed at his

22

request and he only recently sought to lift the stay and it appears the missing declarations

23

were recovered. Plaintiff has not described the substance of the declarations which were at

24

least temporarily missing and a review of his habeas petition indicates that several

25

declarations have been attached. Finally, plaintiff has not identified any specific defendants

26

and described their role in the case. The complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend

27

to provide more information regarding his denial of access to the courts claim and to

28
3

1

identify the appropriate defendants. His claim regarding the deprivation of his non-legal

2

property is DISMISSED for the reasons set forth above.
CONCLUSION

3
4

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend to assert a claim for denial of

complaint must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is filed and

7

must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words

8

AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely

9

replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to

10

present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not

11
For the Northern District of California

access to the courts in accordance with the standards set forth above. The amended

6

United States District Court

5

incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the

12

designated time will result in the dismissal of this action.

13

2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

14

court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed

15

“Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion.

16

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to

17

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 23, 2014.
NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22

G:\PRO-SE\NJV\CR.14\Flowers1641.dwlta.wpd

23
24
25
26
27
28
4

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

EUREKA DIVISION

4
5
6
7
8
9

Plaintiff,

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendant.

10
11

No.1:14-C-1641 NJV

JOSEPH J. FLOWERS,

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that on May 23, 2014, I served a true and correct copy of

12

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

13

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

14
15
16
17
18

Joseph J. Flowers
F82065
A2-230
High Desert State Prison
P.O. Box 3030
Susanville, CA 96127

19
20
21
22
23
24

Dated: May 23, 2014
/s/ Linn Van Meter
Linn Van Meter
Administrative Law Clerk to the
Honorable Nandor J. Vadas

25
26
27
28
5