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)

Download PDF
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

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?