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)

Download PDF
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

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?