Body v. Phillips et al

Filing 6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 11/8/11. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2011)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

OAKLAND DIVISION

6
7

MANUEL L. BODY,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Correctional Officer M. PHILLIPS, et al.,
Defendants.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 11-4702 PJH (PR)

/
12
13

Plaintiff, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights

14

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma

15

pauperis.

16
17

DISCUSSION
A.

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

1915A(b)(1),(2).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

24
25

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

26

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

27

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

28

///

1
2

B.

Legal Claim
Plaintiff contends that his flat-screen television set was seized and lost when he and

3

his cellmate were sent to segregation. He wants the court to order defendants to provide

4

him with a television set as good as the one of which he was deprived.

5

Neither the negligent nor intentional deprivation of property states a due process

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (intentional destruction of inmate's property). The
availability of an adequate state post-deprivation remedy, e.g. a state tort action, precludes

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

803, 806 (9th Cir. 1989).

17
18

Plaintiff's allegations involve a random and unauthorized deprivation of property not
cognizable under section 1983, so the complaint must be dismissed.

19
20
21
22
23

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set out above, the complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. The
clerk shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 8, 2011.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

P:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.11\BODY4702.DSM.wpd

2