Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01130/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01130-0/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

MARCELLUS GREENE, a.k.a.

MARVELLOUS AFRIKAN WARRIOR,

Plaintiff,

 v.

J. BROWN, et al.,

Defendants. __________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 15-1130 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a prisoner of the State of California, filed this pro se civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons discussed below, the complaint is

dismissed. The application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted in a separate order. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

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

Case 4:15-cv-01130-JSW Document 7 Filed 06/01/15 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

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. Pro se

pleadings must be liberally construed. 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 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. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

LEGAL CLAIMS

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Brown, a guard at Pelican Bay State Prison,

threatened him by stating “U won’t be going home.” Allegations of mere threats also are

not cognizable under § 1983. Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 1987) (mere

threat does not constitute constitutional wrong, nor do allegations that naked threat was

for purpose of denying access to courts compel contrary result). This allegation does not

state a cognizable claim under Section 1983. 

Plaintiff also alleges that Brown and “others” took his peanut butter and jelly,

vitamins, toothpaste, and deodorant without authorization. Neither the negligent nor

intentional deprivation of property states a due process claim under Section 1983 if the

deprivation was random and unauthorized, however. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527,

535-44 (1981), overruled in part on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327,

330-31 (1986). 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 meaningful hearing prior to, deprivation statutory provision for post-deprivation

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

California law provides such an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Barnett v.

Case 4:15-cv-01130-JSW Document 7 Filed 06/01/15 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

Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Cal. Gov't Code §§ 810-895). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s allegations that the unauthorized deprivation of his personal

property does not state a cognizable claim under Section 1983 for the violation of his

constitutional rights.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out above, this action is DISMISSED. 

The Clerk shall close the file and enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 1, 2015 

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-01130-JSW Document 7 Filed 06/01/15 Page 3 of 3