Youngblood v. Warden

Filing 11

ORDER by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granting 7 Motion to Amend/Correct ;denying as moot 9 Motion to Appoint Counsel; Dismissing Case. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

OAKLAND DIVISION

6
7

JESSE L. YOUNGBLOOD,
Plaintiff,

8
vs.

9

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO AMEND; DENYING
MOTION TO APPOINT
COUNSEL; DISMISSING
CASE

Warden A. A. LAMARQUE; and 45
Unknown Names of Gov. Officials,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 12-4423 PJH (PR)

Defendants.
12

/

13

Plaintiff, a prisoner at Corcoran Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under

14

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and he

15

has filed an amended complaint.

16
17
18

DISCUSSION
A.

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). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

24

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

25

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of

26

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary;

27

the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the

28

grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations

allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] to relief'

3

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

4

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief

5

above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)

6

(citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

7

plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has recently explained

8

the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the

9

framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are

10

well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine

11
For the Northern District of California

omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual

2

United States District Court

1

whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.

12

1937, 1950 (2009).

13

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

B.

18

Legal Claims
Plaintiff’s claims in the amended complaint are again difficult to understand. He

19

states that from 2005 through 2010 unidentified correctional officers injured him which led

20

to mental anguish, they stole his property and denied him access to the courts. Plaintiff

21

does not provide details regarding these allegations or even the identities of most of the

22

defendants. The court also notes that this complaint is substantially similar to a prior

23

complaint that plaintiff filed with this court that was dismissed. See Youngblood v. The

24

People of the State of California, C 11-4064 PJH (PR).

25

Plaintiff is informed that neither the negligent nor intentional deprivation of property

26

states a due process claim under § 1983 if the deprivation was random and unauthorized.

27

Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535-44 (1981) (state employee negligently lost prisoner's

28

hobby kit), overruled in part on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31
2

1

(1986); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (intentional destruction of inmate's

2

property). The availability of an adequate state post-deprivation remedy, e.g. a state tort

3

action, precludes relief because it provides adequate procedural due process. King v.

4

Massarweh, 782 F.2d 825, 826 (9th Cir. 1986). California law provides an adequate post-

5

deprivation remedy for any property deprivations. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17

6

(9th Cir. 1994) (citing Cal. Gov't Code §§ 810-895). Nor is a prisoner protected by the

7

Fourth Amendment against the seizure, destruction or conversion of his property. Taylor v.

8

Knapp, 871 F.2d 803, 806 (9th Cir. 1989).

9

Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. See Lewis v. Casey,
518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). To establish a

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

claim for any violation of the right of access to the courts, the prisoner must prove that there

12

was an inadequacy in the prison's legal access program that caused him an actual injury.

13

See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 350-55. To prove an actual injury, the prisoner must show that the

14

inadequacy in the prison's program hindered his efforts to pursue a non-frivolous claim

15

concerning his conviction or conditions of confinement. See id. at 354-55.

16

Plaintiff has again failed to identify the defendants or even provide details that could

17

state a constitutional claim. As no amount of amendments would cure the deficiencies of

18

the amended complaint, it will be dismissed without leave to amend.

19

CONCLUSION

20

1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Docket No. 7) is GRANTED and the court has

21
22
23

considered the amended complaint.
2. This action is DISMISSED without leave to amend as frivolous and for failure to
state a claim.

24

3. Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Docket No. 9) is DENIED as moot.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

Dated: February 4, 2013.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

27
28

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.12\Youngblood4423.dis.wpd

3