Body v. Phillips et al

Filing 5

ORDER OF DISMISSAL, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 7/24/12. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/24/2012)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

OAKLAND DIVISION

6
7

MANUEL LAVELLE BODY,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

M PHILLIPS, et al.,
Defendants.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 12-2871 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
3
4

B.

Legal Claims
Plaintiff contends that the defendant correctional officer lost his flat-screen television

when his property was stored.
Neither the negligent nor intentional deprivation of property states a due process

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

7

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

8

Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (intentional destruction of inmate's property). The

9

availability of an adequate state post-deprivation remedy, e.g. a state tort action, precludes

10

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

11
For the Northern District of California

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

6

United States District Court

5

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

803, 806 (9th Cir. 1989).

16
17

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

18
19
20
21
22

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set out above, the complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. The
clerk shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 24, 2012.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.12\BODY2871.DSM.wpd

2