Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01107/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01107-2/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

ANTOLIN ANDREWS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1107 DFL GGH P

vs.

THERESA GUZMAN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s second amended complaint filed July 13, 2006. 

Named as defendants are California State Prison-Solano (CSP-Solano) Correctional Officers

Tapia and Smith. 

Plaintiff alleges that defendants mishandled his personal and legal property in

retaliation for his legal activities. Plaintiff also alleges that defendants violated his right to access

the courts by depriving him of his legal property. These allegations state colorable claims for

relief.

Plaintiff also alleges that defendants violated his right to due process by

mishandling his personal property. As stated in the June 23, 2006, order giving him leave to file

the second amended complaint, the United States Supreme Court has held that “an unauthorized

Case 2:04-cv-01107-JAM-GGH Document 22 Filed 10/06/06 Page 1 of 4
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

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).

In the instant case, plaintiff has not alleged any facts suggesting that defendants’

conduct regarding the handling of his property was authorized. In other words, defendants were

not acting pursuant to an official policy. The California Legislature has provided a remedy for

tort claims against public officials in the California Government Code, §§ 900, et seq. 

Accordingly, the court will separately recommend that plaintiff’s due process claim be dismissed.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants: Tapia, Smith.

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff 2 USM-285 forms, one summons,

an instruction sheet and a copy of the second amended complaint filed July 13, 2006.

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 3

above; and 

d. Three copies of the endorsed complaint filed July 13, 2006.

///// 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01107-JAM-GGH Document 22 Filed 10/06/06 Page 2 of 4
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

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States

Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4

without payment of costs. 

DATED: 10/5/06 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

an1107.am(3)

Case 2:04-cv-01107-JAM-GGH Document 22 Filed 10/06/06 Page 3 of 4
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTOLIN ANDREWS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1107 DFL GGH P

vs.

THERESA GUZMAN, et al., NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

__________________________________/

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed :

 completed summons form

 completed USM-285 forms

 copies of the 

 Complaint/Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-01107-JAM-GGH Document 22 Filed 10/06/06 Page 4 of 4