Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04422/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04422-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN MOSES SCHOPPE-RICO, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

PELICAN BAY STATE PRISON, et al, 

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-4422 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket Nos. 2, 4, 5)

Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison, has filed a pro se

civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding the destruction of his property

by prison staff. Plaintiff has also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis

(docket nos. 2, 4) and a motion seeking to proceed pro hac vice(docket no. 5). As

Plaintiff’s complaint is now dismissed, these motions are DENIED as moot (docket

nos. 2, 4, 5) and no fee is due in this case.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff complains that staff at the prison wrongly deprived him of his property

when he was placed in the SHU. Plaintiff contends that during the procedure in place

to remove or dispose of disallowed property, he was not provided with an extension of

time to dispose of property that he was not allowed to retain and that staff wrongly

charged him for a blanket, resulting in his not having funds available with which to

send his property to his family. Plaintiff contends that this property was worth $262.60

Case 3:05-cv-04422-JSW Document 6 Filed 04/27/06 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

and that he also suffered a hardship due to the sentimental value of the lost property. 

Plaintiff seeks damages for the destruction of his property. 

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. See 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. See id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se

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

696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

elements: (1) that a violation of 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. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

Ordinarily, due process of law 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). However, neither the

negligent nor intentional deprivation of property states a due process claim under §

1983 if the deprivation was random and unauthorized. See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S.

527, 535-44 (1981) (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) (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) (where state cannot foresee, and therefore provide

Case 3:05-cv-04422-JSW Document 6 Filed 04/27/06 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

meaningful hearing prior to, deprivation statutory provision for post-deprivation

hearing or common law tort remedy for erroneous deprivation satisfies due process);

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

such an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-

17 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Cal. Gov't Code §§ 810-895). Therefore, where a prison

official acts in a random and unauthorized manner to deny an inmate his property (that

is, he fails to act in accord with established prison procedures), the claim must be

pursued in state, not federal, court. As Plaintiff here alleges that prison officials were

not authorized to withdraw money from his account for a blanket, thereby deducting

from his account available funds to send his property home, Plaintiff fails to state a due

process claim. 

CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED. The

Clerk shall close the file and enter judgment in this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 27, 2006 JEFFREY S. WHITE

 United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04422-JSW Document 6 Filed 04/27/06 Page 3 of 3