Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00676/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00676-1/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN A.H. EDSALL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER

OSUNA, et al.,

Defendants. _____________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-0676 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On February 1, 2007, plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at California State

Prison, Folsom, and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights complaint under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims officials of the Correctional Training Facility (“CTF”),

where plaintiff was formerly housed, lost five boxes of his personal property while he was

housed in administrative segregation. In a separate order filed concurrently herewith,

plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §

1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that

are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se

Case 3:07-cv-00676-MMC Document 6 Filed 05/29/07 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

27

28

2

pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d

696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and

(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

Plaintiff claims that prison officials had custody and control of 13 boxes of his

personal property while plaintiff was in administrative segregation. According to plaintiff,

they lost five of these boxes, which included books, supplies, legal documents and “other

personal property.” He seeks “monetary compensation to cover the cost of all missing

property.” 

The federal right to due process ordinarily requires notice and an opportunity for some

kind of hearing prior to the deprivation of a significant property interest. See Memphis

Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1, 19 (1978). Neither the negligent nor

intentional deprivation of property states a due process claim under § 1983, however, if the

deprivation was random and unauthorized. See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535-44

(1981) (finding no claim where state employee negligently lost prisoner's hobby kit),

overruled in part on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31 (1986);

Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (finding no claim based on intentional

destruction of inmate's property). The availability of an adequate state post-deprivation

remedy, e.g., a state tort action, precludes relief because it provides sufficient procedural due

process. See Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 128 (1990); King v. Massarweh, 782 F.2d

825, 826 (9th Cir. 1986). California law provides such adequate post-deprivation remedy. 

See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Cal. Gov't Code §§ 810-

895). 

Here, as noted, plaintiff alleges that officials lost his property while he was in

administrative segregation. Plaintiff makes no claim that the original deprivation of his

property upon his placement in administrative segregation was improper, that it violated his

Case 3:07-cv-00676-MMC Document 6 Filed 05/29/07 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

27

28

3

right to due process, or that he did not receive the procedures required by due process when

the property initially was taken from him. Rather, he claims the property subsequently was

lost while it was in the officials’ “custody and control.” As the alleged loss of plaintiff’s

property was unauthorized, it does not implicate his right to due process. Although plaintiff

may bring a tort claim in state court for the loss of his personal property, such a claim does

not state a cognizable claim for relief under federal law.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable

claim for relief. 

The Clerk shall close the file.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 29, 2007 _________________________

 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

 United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00676-MMC Document 6 Filed 05/29/07 Page 3 of 3