Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02585/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02585-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL MEYERS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2585 WBS EFB P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner without counsel, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). This proceeding was

referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Plaintiff’s declaration makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), plaintiff must pay the $350 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1914(a). An initial partial payment of $4.00 is assessed pursuant to section 1915(b)(1). 

Plaintiff must make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited

to his trust account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The agency having custody of plaintiff shall

forward payments from plaintiff’s account to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the

account exceeds $10 until the filing fee is paid. 

Case 2:06-cv-02585-WBS-EFB Document 7 Filed 10/18/07 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

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and finds it

does not state a cognizable claim against any defendant. Plaintiff seeks to proceed under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and so he must allege an individual deprived him of a right secured to him by the

Constitution or laws of the United States while acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988). 

Plaintiff alleges that defendants deprived him of personal property and failed to

reimburse him after he successfully filed a government claim form. The United States Supreme

Court has held that “an unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee

does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the 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). Thus, where the state provides a meaningful

postdeprivation remedy, only authorized, intentional deprivations constitute actionable violations

of the Due Process Clause. An authorized deprivation is one carried out pursuant to established

state procedures, regulations, or statutes. 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).

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts suggesting that the deprivation was authorized;

therefore, plaintiff may not claim that the deprivation resulted in violation of his Fourteenth

Amendment due process right. Furthermore, the California Legislature has provided a remedy

for tort claims against public officials in California. See Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 900, et seq. Since

plaintiff has not attempted to seek redress in the state system, he cannot sue in federal court on

the claim that the state deprived him of property without due process of the law. For these

reasons, the court finds that while plaintiff’s complaint claims a right to recover under the United

States Constitution, the claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous. Plaintiff has failed to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted and this case should be dismissed.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis

is granted; and 

Case 2:06-cv-02585-WBS-EFB Document 7 Filed 10/18/07 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

Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.

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 twenty days

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

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: October 18, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02585-WBS-EFB Document 7 Filed 10/18/07 Page 3 of 3