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
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?