Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02114/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02114-3/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON LOKERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN, HIGH DESERT STATE 

PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-2114 CKD P

ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1). On October 17, 2023, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint as the court is required 

to do under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. 

Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint.

Again, the court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims 

that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 

Case 2:23-cv-02114-DAD-CKD Document 13 Filed 01/05/24 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

As in his original complaint, plaintiff complains about the confiscation of a poster 

plaintiff’s brother attempted to mail plaintiff. Initially, plaintiff was denied the poster by 

defendant Moseley as defendant Moseley found that the poster violated prisons regulations as to 

the permissible size of posters. Plaintiff utilized the inmate grievance process to appeal that 

decision, and the appeal was granted by defendant Moseley. Defendant Moseley ordered that 

“appropriate staff” either give the poster to plaintiff or that he be given another valid reason why 

plaintiff could not possess the poster. Plaintiff never received his poster nor an updated decision 

as to why plaintiff could not possess the poster. Plaintiff asserts violations of his right to free 

speech under the First Amendment and his right not to be deprived of property without due 

process of law as guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment.

As for the First Amendment, while it appears the initial reason plaintiff was denied his 

poster may have implicated plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, the reversal of the initial decision 

removed any potential First Amendment violation. 

If plaintiff has any federal claim at all, it could only be deprivation of property without 

due process. However, as plaintiff already knows, “an unauthorized 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). The California Legislature has 

provided such a remedy by permitting tort claims against public officials under California 

Government Code § 900, et seq. 

For these reasons, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted. The court will not grant leave to file a second amended complaint as it does not appear 

that any factual expansion or clarification would result in plaintiff stating a claim upon which he 

could proceed.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court 

assign a district court judge to this case.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which 

Case 2:23-cv-02114-DAD-CKD Document 13 Filed 01/05/24 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

relief can be granted; and

2. This case be closed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 

Cir. 1991).

Dated: January 5, 2024

1

loke2114.frs

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-02114-DAD-CKD Document 13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 3