Liberatore v. State of California

Filing 13

ORDER DISMISSING CASE Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 10/11/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RONALD STEVENS LIBERATORE,

Case No.

16-cv-3439-TEH

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

9
10

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Plaintiff, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed this

14

pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

15

complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and Plaintiff has

16

submitted two letters (Docket Nos. 11, 12) that the Court has

17

construed as a second amended complaint.

The amended

18

I

19

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of

20

cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity

21

or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

22

1915A(a).

23

the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint

24

“is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which

25

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a

26

defendant who is immune from such relief.”

27

Pleadings filed by pro se litigants, however, must be liberally

28

construed.

28 U.S.C. §

The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss

Id. § 1915A(b).

Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010);

1

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

2

1990).

3

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must

4

allege two essential elements:

5

Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2)

6

that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under

7

the color of state law.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

(1) that a right secured by the

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
II

Plaintiff presents various allegations regarding the
confiscation of property and improper medical care.
Neither the alleged negligent nor intentional deprivation of

12

property states a due process claim under § 1983 if the

13

deprivation was random and unauthorized.

14

U.S. 527, 535-44 (1981) (state employee negligently lost

15

prisoner's hobby kit), overruled in part on other grounds,

16

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

17

Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (intentional destruction of

18

inmate's property).

19

deprivation remedy, e.g. a state tort action, precludes relief

20

because it provides adequate procedural due process.

21

Massarweh, 782 F.2d 825, 826 (9th Cir. 1986).

22

provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for any property

23

deprivations.

24

1994) (citing Cal. Gov't Code §§ 810-895).

25

Parratt v. Taylor, 451

The availability of an adequate state post-

King v.

California law

Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir.

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates

26

the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual

27

punishment.

28

v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); McGuckin

2

1

grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136

2

(9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).

3

indifference" involves an examination of two elements: the

4

seriousness of the prisoner's medical need and the nature of the

5

defendant's response to that need.

6

A determination of "deliberate

Id. at 1059.

A "serious" medical need exists if the failure to treat a

7

prisoner's condition could result in further significant injury

8

or the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain."

9

existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would

Id.

The

find important and worthy of comment or treatment; the presence

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual's

12

daily activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial

13

pain are examples of indications that a prisoner has a "serious"

14

need for medical treatment.

15

Id. at 1059-60.

A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he or she

16

knows that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm

17

and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to

18

abate it.

19

prison official must not only “be aware of facts from which the

20

inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm

21

exists,” but he “must also draw the inference.”

22

official should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then

23

the official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how

24

severe the risk.

Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188

25

(9th Cir. 2002).

“A difference of opinion between a prisoner-

26

patient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does

27

not give rise to a § 1983 claim.”

28

1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981).

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).

3

Id.

The

If a prison

Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d

1

The original and first amended complaints were dismissed

2

with leave to amend because it was difficult to discern the exact

3

nature of Plaintiff’s allegations.

4

amended complaint are similarly confusing.

5

The allegations of the second

To the extent Plaintiff still argues that state officials

6

have confiscated or broken his headphones, he has failed to state

7

a claim due to the availability of an adequate state post-

8

deprivation remedy.

9

failed to present plausible allegations concerning how Defendants

With regard to his medical claims he has

were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

of Plaintiff’s allegations concern medical care in the 1980s and

12

1990s which are time barred.

13

challenge his denial of parole he must file a habeas petition.

14

Plaintiff’s allegations are meritless and frivolous, and fail to

15

state a claim.

16

deficiencies in this complaint, the action is dismissed with

17

prejudice.

20
21
22

To the extent he wishes to

Because no amount of amendment could cure the

18
19

Many

III
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders as
follows:
1.

Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice as

frivolous and for failure to state a claim.

23

2.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

The Clerk shall close this case.

Dated: 10/11/2016

26

________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

27
28

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.16\Liberatore3439.dis.docx

4