Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00264/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00264-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY THEODORE

KRALOVETZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARIAN E. SPEARMAN; C.

McGRIFF,

Defendants

/

No. C 16-0264 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 42

U.S.C. 1983. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted in a separate order. For the reasons

discussed below, the case is DISMISSED.

ANALYSIS

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek

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

which 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. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro

Case 3:16-cv-00264-WHA Document 5 Filed 01/27/16 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699

(9th Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the

statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds

upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a

plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not

do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative

level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A

complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id.

at 1974.

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 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 deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. 

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

B. LEGAL CLAIMS

Plaintiff alleges that defendant D. McGriff, a Correctional Officer at the California

Training Facility (“CTF”), where plaintiff is incarcerated, seized and confiscated his personal

property despite plaintiff’s being allowed to possess it. Neither the negligent nor intentional

deprivation of personal property states a due process claim under § 1983 if the deprivation was

random and unauthorized. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535-44 (1981) (state employee

negligently lost prisoner's hobby kit); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (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 adequate procedural due process. 

King v. Massarweh, 782 F.2d 825, 826 (9th Cir. 1986). California law provides an adequate

post-deprivation remedy for any property deprivations. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17

Case 3:16-cv-00264-WHA Document 5 Filed 01/27/16 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

(9th Cir. 1994) (citing Cal. Gov't Code §§ 810-895). Nor is a prisoner protected by the Fourth

Amendment against the seizure, destruction or conversion of his property. Taylor v. Knapp,

871 F.2d 803, 806 (9th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff's allegations involve an allegedly unauthorized

deprivation of his personal property, the sort of claim that is not cognizable under § 1983. As a

result, his claims must be dismissed. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out above, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The clerk

shall close the file and enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27 , 2016. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-00264-WHA Document 5 Filed 01/27/16 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.16\KRALOVETZ0264.DSM.wpd

Case 3:16-cv-00264-WHA Document 5 Filed 01/27/16 Page 4 of 4