Doss v. County Record's Office of Contra Costa County et al

Filing 3

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AND DIRECTING COURT CLERK TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH BLANK CIVIL RIGHTS FORM. Amended Complaint due by 11/4/2013. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/3/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

Plaintiff,

5
6

Case No.: C 13-3845 CW (PR)

JIMMIE DOSS,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND AND DIRECTING COURT
CLERK TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH
BLANK CIVIL RIGHTS FORM

v.

7
8
9

COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, D. WEBBER,
COUNTY CLERK,
Defendants.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
INTRODUCTION
12
13

Plaintiff, a state prisoner incarcerated at Corcoran State
Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42

14

U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the violation of his constitutional rights

15

by the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office and D. Webber, County

16

Clerk.

17

granted in a separate order.

His motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is

DISCUSSION

18
19
20

I. Legal Standard
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any

21

case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity

22

or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

23

§ 1915A(a).

24

claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail

25
26
27
28

28 U.S.C.

In its review, the court must identify any cognizable

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

Id.

1

§ 1915A(b)(1), (2).

2

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

3

1988).

Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed.

4

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

5

allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the

6

Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and

7

(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting

8

under the color of state law.

9

(1988).

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 if the plaintiff can show that the defendant’s
actions both actually and proximately caused the deprivation of a
federally protected right.

Lemire v. Cal. Dept. Corrections &

Rehabilitation, __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 4007558, *8 (9th Cir. 2013);
Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988); Harris v. City
of Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981).

A person

16
deprives another of a constitutional right within the meaning of
17
§ 1983 if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's
18
affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he is legally
19
20
21

required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff
complains.

Leer, 844 F.2d at 633.

Under no circumstances is

there respondeat superior liability under § 1983.

Lemire, 2013 WL

22

4007558, *8.

23

there liability under § 1983 solely because one is responsible for

24

the actions or omissions of another.

25

1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home

26

Village, 723 F.2d 675, 680-81 (9th Cir. 1984).

27

be liable under § 1983 upon a showing of (1) personal involvement

28

in the constitutional deprivation or (2) a sufficient causal

Or, in layman's terms, under no circumstances is

2

Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d

A supervisor may

1

connection between the supervisor's wrongful conduct and the

2

constitutional violation.

3

1003-04 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207

4

(9th Cir. 2011)).

5

allege that supervisors knew about the constitutional violation

6

and that they generally created policies and procedures that led

7

to the violation, without alleging “a specific policy” or “a

8

specific event” instigated by them that led to the constitutional

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

violations.

Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991,

It is insufficient for a plaintiff only to

Hydrick v. Hunter, 669 F.3d 937, 942 (9th Cir. 2012)

II. Plaintiff's Allegations
Plaintiff alleges that, in December 2007, Defendants assisted
an individual named Amos Joe Jones in the theft of real property
from Plaintiff by way of fraud and/or a lack of knowledge of the
procedural protocols required by law and policy as the custodian

14

of public records.1

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants allowed Mr.

15
Jones to file a fraudulent deed to Plaintiff's real property that
16
Mr. Jones claimed Plaintiff had signed without requiring an
17
18
19

"affidavit" or a notarized signature to prove that Plaintiff had
agreed to transfer the property.

Plaintiff asserts that

Defendants' participation in filing the fraudulent document

20

without utilizing procedural protocol or policy deprived him of

21

his property without due process of law.

22

Ordinarily, due process of law requires notice and an

23

opportunity for some kind of hearing prior to the deprivation of a

24

significant property interest.

Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v.

25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff filed an earlier § 1983 action against Mr. Jones,
Doss v. Jones, C 13-1905 CW (PR), that was dismissed because
private individuals do not act under color of state law and, thus,
Mr. Jones could not be sued under § 1983.

3

1

Craft, 436 U.S. 1, 19 (1978).

2

intentional deprivation of property states a due process claim

3

under § 1983 if the deprivation was random and unauthorized,

4

however.

5

employee negligently lost prisoner's hobby kit), overruled in part

6

on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31

7

(1986); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (intentional

8

destruction of inmate's property).

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

Neither the negligent nor

Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535-44 (1981) (state

The availability of an

adequate state post-deprivation remedy, e.g., a state tort action,
precludes relief because it provides sufficient procedural due
process.

Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 128 (1990) (where state

cannot foresee, and therefore provide meaningful hearing prior to,
deprivation statutory provision for post-deprivation hearing or

13
common law tort remedy for erroneous deprivation satisfies due
14
process); King v. Massarweh, 782 F.2d 825, 826 (9th Cir. 1986)
15
(same).
16
17
18

California law provides such an adequate post-deprivation

remedy.

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

(citing Cal. Gov't Code §§ 810-895).
If the deprivation is not random and unauthorized, but the

19

result of "established state procedure," the availability of a

20

post-termination tort action does not necessarily provide due

21

process.

22

(1982) (failure on part of state commission to hold hearing within

23

statutory time limits not permitted to terminate timely filed

24

claim).

25

designed to control the actions of state officials and the

26

officials act pursuant to those procedures.

27

Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 738 (9th Cir. 2001); Armendariz v. Penman,

28

31 F.3d 860, 866 (9th Cir. 1994), aff'd in part on relevant

Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 435-37

Parratt does not apply where the state has procedures

4

Zimmerman v. City of

1

grounds and vacated in part on other grounds on reh'g en banc, 75

2

F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

3

Fourteenth Amendment requires "'an opportunity . . . granted at a

4

meaningful time and in a meaningful manner,'. . . for a hearing

5

appropriate to the nature of the case.'"

6

In those instances, the

Logan, 455 U.S. at 437.

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to follow

7

proper procedures.

8

because the alleged action was random and unauthorized.

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

Thus, his allegations fall under Parratt

Furthermore, Plaintiff may bring a state claim for negligence
against the proper Defendants, thus satisfying the requirement for
an adequate state post-deprivation remedy.

Therefore, his

allegations fail to state a due process claim.
Plaintiff's allegations fail for another reason.

As

13
discussed above, there is no vicarious or supervisory liability
14
under § 1983.

Plaintiff names the County Recorder's Office and

15
the County Clerk as Defendants, not the specific employee who
16
17
18

allegedly was negligent in filing Mr. Jones' document.

Therefore,

Plaintiff's complaint fails to name a proper Defendant.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED for failure

19

to state a cognizable claim for relief.

20

complaint, if he truthfully can allege that the fraudulent

21

document was filed pursuant to a policy or procedure and clearly

22

links a proper Defendant to the alleged injury for which he or she

23

is alleged to be responsible.

24

He may file an amended

CONCLUSION

25

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

26

1.

Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED.

27

2.

Within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order,

28

Plaintiff may file an amended complaint in order to cure the
5

1
2

deficiencies noted above.
Plaintiff shall use the court's civil rights complaint form,

3

a copy of which is provided herewith, and include in the caption

4

both the case number of this action, No. C 13-3845 CW (PR), and

5

the heading "AMENDED COMPLAINT."

6

If Plaintiff fails to timely file an amended complaint in

7

conformity with this Order, the case will be dismissed without

8

prejudice and will be closed.

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

3.

It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case.

He must keep the Court informed of any change of address and
must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion.
Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), for failure to

13
prosecute.
14
4.

The Clerk of the Court shall provide Plaintiff with a

15
blank civil rights complaint form.
16
17

Dated: 10/3/2013
________________________
CLAUDIA WILKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6