In re David T. Evans
Filing
3
ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 6/22/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/25/2012)
1
2
3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
8
In re DAVID T. EVANS, C-92387,
9
Plaintiff.
10
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. C 12-3188 CRB (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
11
Plaintiff, a prisoner at Avenal State Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights
12
13
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking relief for allegedly unlawful
14
deprivation of property at San Quentin State Prison.
DISCUSSION
15
16
17
A.
Standard of Review
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which
18
prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
19
governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable
20
claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint
21
"is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
22
granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
23
relief." Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, however.
24
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
25
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two
26
essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the
27
United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a
28
person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 US 42, 48 (1988).
1
B.
2
Legal Claims
A negligent or intentional deprivation of a state prisoner's property fails to
3
state a due process claim under § 1983 if the state has an adequate post-
4
deprivation remedy. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984).
5
California Law provides such an adequate post-deprivation remedy for
6
deprivations of property. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir.
7
1994) (citing Cal. Gov't Code §§ 810-895). Plaintiff's allegations fail to state a
8
claim cognizable under § 1983. See id. at 817.1
CONCLUSION
9
For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED for failure to
10
11
state a claim under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
The clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this order and close the
12
13
file.
14
SO ORDERED.
15
DATED: June 22, 2012
CHARLES R. BREYER
United States District Judge
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.12\Evans, D.12-3188.dismissal.wpd
24
25
1
27
A prisoner is not protected by the Fourth Amendment against the seizure,
destruction or conversion of his property. See Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F.2d 803,
806 (9th Cir. 1989).
28
2
26
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?