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)

Download PDF
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

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?