Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05204/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05204-0/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

ARTURO GALINDO,

Plaintiff,

v.

ISSAC RAMIREZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-5204-REC-SMS-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON

WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED UNDER

SECTION 1983

(Doc. 11)

I. Findings and Recommendations Following Screening of Amended Complaint

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff Arturo Galindo (“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 January

30, 2004. On August 5, 2004, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to amend, for

failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted. On October 27, 2004, plaintiff filed

an amended complaint. 

B. Screening Requirement

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

Case 1:04-cv-05204-REC -SMS Document 12 Filed 10/03/05 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

27

28 1

 The court takes judicial notice of its screening order filed on August 5, 2004. (Doc. 7, 2:10-11.)

2

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

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).

C. Summary of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint

The events at issue in the instant action allegedly occurred at California Substance Abuse

TreatmentFacility and State Prison-Corcoran, where plaintiff was incarcerated at the time.1 Plaintiff

names inmate Issac Ramirez and Sylvia Rodarte as defendants.

In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that his television set was damaged when his

cellmate, inmate Ramirez, a diabetic who was suffering from low blood sugar, grabbed plaintiff’s

television as he was descending from the top bunk and caused the television to fall to the floor and

break. Plaintiff alleges that inmate Ramirez and his wife or girlfriend, defendant Sylvia Rodarte,

attempted to compensate plaintiff but at the time, plaintiff was not allowed to receive any special

packages. 

D. Plaintiff’s Claim

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation

of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution .

. . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity,

or other proper proceeding for redress. 

Case 1:04-cv-05204-REC -SMS Document 12 Filed 10/03/05 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

27

28

3

42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must plead (1) that the defendant

acted under color of state law and (2) that the defendant deprived him of rights secured by the

Constitution or federal statutes. Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986).

Defendants Ramirez and Rodarte are private parties and were not acting under color of state law.

See Price v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-08 (9th Cir. 1991). Further, the accidental destruction of

plaintiff’s television set does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Hudson v. Palmer,

468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). Therefore, plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted

under section 1983. To the extent that plaintiff has a remedy against defendants for the loss of his

television set, federal court is not the proper forum for the claim and section 1983 is not the proper

legal basis for the claim. 

E. Conclusion

The court finds that plaintiff’s amended complaint does not contain a claim upon which relief

may be granted under section 1983. Plaintiff was previously given leave to amend to cure the

deficiencies in his claim but was unable to do so. In this instance, it would be futile to allow plaintiff

leave to amend his claim. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, based

on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, with prejudice,

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 1983.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 2, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05204-REC -SMS Document 12 Filed 10/03/05 Page 3 of 3