Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00340/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00340-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES L. JEFFERSON No. CIV S-10-0340-MCE CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

J.R. WEAVER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1). 

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

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

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

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “short and plain statement

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This means

that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172,

1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the

Case 2:10-cv-00340-MCE -CMK Document 11 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 3
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

2

complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it

rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must allege

with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the

claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is

impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague

and conclusory. 

I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff names three defendants in this action: Weaver, Doowly and Agguirre. 

He claims defendant Weaver threatened to have him killed or assaulted, then followed through

on those threats by refusing to place him in a special needs yard and by telling other inmates he

was a snitch. He claims defendants Weaver and Doowly destroyed some of his property. He

also claims defendant Doowly put razor blades in his food. His claims against Agguirre are

unclear, but apparently relate to the destruction of his property as he is requesting Agguirre and

Doowly pay for the damage to his property. 

By separate order, the undersigned found Plaintiff’s complaint, read liberally and

broadly as the court must, appears sufficient to state a cognizable claim for relief, pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), as to defendants Weaver and Doowly for failure to

protect and placing his safety at risk. However, his claims for the destruction of his property are

insufficient to state a claim, and the undersigned will recommend those claims and defendant

Agguirre be dismissed from this action 

II. DISCUSSION

Where a prisoner alleges the deprivation of a liberty or property interest caused by

the unauthorized action of a prison official, there is no claim cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

if the state provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113,

129-32 (1990); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). A state’s post-deprivation remedy

may be adequate even though it does not provide relief identical to that available under § 1983. 

Case 2:10-cv-00340-MCE -CMK Document 11 Filed 07/14/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

See Hudson, 468 U.S. at 531 n.11. An available state common law tort claim procedure to

recover the value of property is an adequate remedy. See Zinermon, 494 U.S. at 128-29.

Here, given plaintiff’s ability to file a state tort action based on damage to his

property, he cannot state a cognizable claim under § 1983. The only apparent claim against

defendant Agguirre relates to the destruction of his property, and as this is not a cognizable

claim, defendant Agguirre should be dismissed from this action. 

III. CONCLUSION

Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be

cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of

his property claim. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s claims for

destruction of property be dismissed as non-cognizable claims under § 1983, and defendant

Agguirre be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 

See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: July 13, 2010

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:10-cv-00340-MCE -CMK Document 11 Filed 07/14/10 Page 3 of 3