Youngblood v. Evans et al

Filing 6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 5/14/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/14/2013)

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 OF DISMISSAL

M.S. EVANS, et. al.,
Defendants.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 13-2097 PJH (PR)

/
12
Plaintiff, a prisoner at Corcoran Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under
13
42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
14
DISCUSSION
15
A.

Standard of Review

16
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners
17
seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
18
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and
19
dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may
20
be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at
21
1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
22
Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
23
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of
24
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary;
25
the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the
26
grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations
27
omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual
28
allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] to relief'

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.
1937, 1950 (2009).

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

B.

Legal Claims

16

Initially, the court notes that this complaint is substantially similar to a prior complaint

17

that plaintiff filed with this court that was dismissed with prejudice and his in forma pauperis

18

status was revoked on appeal. See Youngblood v. Warden C 12-4423 PJH (PR).

19

Therefore, this case is dismissed as duplicative. Adams v. Cal. Dept. of Health Services,

20

487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007). In the alternative, the case is dismissed for the reasons

21

set forth below.

22

Plaintiff’s claims are difficult to understand. He generally states that from 2005 to

23

2010 there were intolerable prison conditions at Salinas Valley State Prison. Plaintiff

24

provides few specific claims other than he was forced to have a cellmate, guards verbally

25

harassed him and property was improperly taken.

26

Allegations of verbal harassment and threats fail to state a claim cognizable under

27

42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 738 (9th Cir. 1997)

28

(harassment); Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 1987) (threats). Plaintiff is also
2

1

informed that neither the negligent nor intentional deprivation of property states a due

2

process claim under § 1983 if the deprivation was random and unauthorized. Parratt v.

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

remedy for any property deprivations. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir.
1994) (citing Cal. Gov't Code §§ 810-895). Nor is a prisoner protected by the Fourth

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

12

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

13

In the prior similar complaint, plaintiff was provided leave to amend but failed to cure

14

the deficiencies of the complaint. As the actions are similar and plaintiff was already

15

provided an opportunity to amend in the prior case, this action will be dismissed for failure

16

to state a claim without leave to amend.

17
18
19
20
21

CONCLUSION
This action is DISMISSED without leave to amend as frivolous and for failure to state
a claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 14, 2013.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

22
23
24
G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.13\Youngblood2097.dis.wpd

25
26
27
28
3