Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02222/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02222-1/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 Order Denying Applications to Proceed IFP on Appeal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jw\CR.06\taylor2222ifpappea.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JEFFREY LAMONT TAYLOR,

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BRYANT,

et al.,

Defendant(s). /

NO. C 06-2222 JW 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATIONS TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(DOCKET NOS. 3 and 8)

Plaintiff initiated this civil rights suit on March 28, 2006. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section

1915A, the Court screened the complaint, and determined that Plaintiff had failed to state a

cognizable claim regarding the confiscation of his personal property, including legal documents. 

The Court dismissed the case with prejudice and issued judgment on May 9, 2006. Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s pending application to proceed in forma pauperis in this Court (docket no. 3) is DENIED

as moot.

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (docket no. 8) is also DENIED. 

Case 5:06-cv-02222-JW Document 11 Filed 06/17/06 Page 1 of 3
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 Order Denying Applications to Proceed IFP on Appeal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jw\CR.06\taylor2222ifpappea.wpd2

The Court finds that the appeal is frivolous and not taken in good faith. First, as stated previously in

the Court’s Order of Dismissal, 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 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).

Second, Plaintiff’s allegation regarding the confiscation of his legal documents is insufficient

to state a claim because Plaintiff fails to allege any actual injury resulting from the alleged

confiscation. See Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Lastly, the Court notes that Plaintiff is a frequent litigant in this Court, and to date, has not

prevailed in any of his cases. See Taylor v. Salinas Valley State Prison et al., C03-2626 JW (failure

to state a claim regarding, inter alia, access to prison library); Taylor v. Wolff et al., C05-71 JW

(failure to state a claim regarding, inter alia, confiscated or stolen personal property); Taylor v.

Tower et al., C05-2247 JW (duplicative lawsuit); Taylor v. Wilson et al., C05-3495 JW (failure to

state a claim regarding, inter alia, confiscated or stolen personal property); Taylor v. Salinas Valley

State Prison, C05-4112 JW (failure to state a claim regarding request for investigation into prison

conditions).

Dated: June __, 2006 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

16

Case 5:06-cv-02222-JW Document 11 Filed 06/17/06 Page 2 of 3
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 Order Denying Applications to Proceed IFP on Appeal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jw\CR.06\taylor2222ifpappea.wpd

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN MAILED TO:

Jeffrey Lamont Taylor

D41759

D-2-125

D-5-118

Salinas Valley State Prison

P. O. Box 1050 

Soledad, Ca 93960-1060

Dated: June 16__, 2006 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By:/s/___________________

Melissa Peralta

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:06-cv-02222-JW Document 11 Filed 06/17/06 Page 3 of 3