Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00839/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00839-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS HENDON,

Plaintiff,

v.

PETERSON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-0839-AWI DLB-P

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

 

I. Screening Order

A. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on June 27, 2005. 

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

Case 1:05-cv-00839-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 05/01/06 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467

U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citingConley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt

Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under this

standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg.

Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395

U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

B. Summary of Plaintiff’s Complaint

The events at issue in the instant action allegedly occurred at California Correctional

Institution, where plaintiff was incarcerated. Plaintiff names T.A. Peterson, R. Boonville, M.K.

Witcher, T. Meadors, T. Traynham, D. Winett and N. Grannis as defendants. Plaintiff is seeking

money damages. Plaintiff claims that on April 7, 2003, several magazines were confiscated from

his cell. Plaintiff claims he was not given the opportunity to dispose of these items per institutional

procedure. Plaintiff alleges that defendants’ actions violated his Fourth, First and Eighth

Amendment rights. 

An inmate has no “reasonable expectation of privacy in his prison cell entitling him to the

protection of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Hudson v.

Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 536 (1984). Therefore, plaintiff’s allegation that his property was seized from

his cell does not give rise to a claim for relief under section 1983 for violation of the Fourth

Amendment.

To constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, prison

conditions must involve “the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452

U.S. 337, 347 (1981). The confiscation of personal property does not give rise to a claim for relief

for violation of the Eighth Amendment, regardless of the value of the property to the inmate. 

An authorized, intentional deprivation of property is actionable under the Due Process

Clause. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532, n.13 (1984) (citing Logan v. Zimmerman Brush

Co., 455 U.S. 422 (1982)); Quick v. Jones, 754 F.2d 1521, 1524 (9th Cir. 1985). An authorized

deprivation is one carried out pursuant to established state procedures, regulations, or statutes.

Case 1:05-cv-00839-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 05/01/06 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. at 436; Piatt v. McDougall, 773 F.2d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir.

1985); see also Knudson v. City of Ellensburg, 832 F.2d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 1987). Authorized

deprivations of property are permissible if carried out pursuant to a regulation that is reasonably

related to a legitimate penological interest. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987).

Further, plaintiff’s allegation that he was not allowed to send his magazines home does not

rise to the level of a constitutional violation. “An unauthorized intentional deprivation of property

by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements ofthe Due Process

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is

available.” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984).

An authorized, intentional deprivation of property is actionable under the Due Process

Clause. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532, n.13 (1984) (citing Logan v. Zimmerman Brush

Co., 455 U.S. 422 (1982)); Quick v. Jones, 754 F.2d 1521, 1524 (9th Cir. 1985). An authorized

deprivation is one carried out pursuant to established state procedures, regulations, or statutes.

Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. at 436; Piatt v. McDougall, 773 F.2d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir.

1985); see also Knudson v. City of Ellensburg, 832 F.2d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 1987). Authorized

deprivations of property are permissible if carried out pursuant to a regulation that is reasonably

related to a legitimate penological interest. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). To the extent

plaintiff claims defendants did not follow institutional regulations in disposing of his magazines,

plaintiff may be able to state a cognizable claim, but in his present complaint, he fails to link the

conduct to a specific defendant. In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must

link each named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of

plaintiff’s federal rights. 

It also appears that plaintiff names some of the defendants solely based on their involvement

in his inmate appeals. There is no constitutional right to an inmate appeals process. The Ninth

Circuit has held that Prisoners do not have a "separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison

grievance procedure." Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir.2003), citing Mann v. Adams,

855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.1988). The non-existence of, or the failure of prison officials to properly

implement, an administrative appeals process within the prison system does not raise constitutional

Case 1:05-cv-00839-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 05/01/06 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

concerns. Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.1988). See also, Buckley v. Barlow, 997

F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir.1993); Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728 (8th Cir.1991); Azeez v. DeRobertis, 568

F.Supp. 8, 10 (N.D.Ill.1982) ("[A prison] grievance procedure is a procedural right only, it does not

confer any substantive right upon the inmates. Hence, it does not give rise to a protected liberty

interest requiring the procedural protections envisioned by the fourteenth amendment"). A failure

to process a grievance does not state a constitutional violation. Buckley, supra. 

In summary, the court finds that plaintiff’s complaint does not contain any claims upon which

relief may be granted. The court will provide plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended

complaint. Plaintiff is informed he must demonstrate in his complaint how the conditions

complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal rights. See

Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how each

named defendant is involved. There can be no liability unless there is some affirmative link or

connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S.

362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740,

743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Finally, plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an amended complaint

supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once

plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case.

Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement

of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state any claims

upon which relief may be granted;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall file an

amended complaint; and

4. If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the court

Case 1:05-cv-00839-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 05/01/06 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

will recommend that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 28, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00839-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 05/01/06 Page 5 of 5