Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01874/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01874-2/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

ROY GRAY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1874 LKK EFB P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel prosecuting this civil rights action in forma

pauperis. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). This proceeding was referred to the

undersigned by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

On August 29, 2006, the court dismissed plaintiff’s initial complaint with leave to amend. 

The court explained to plaintiff the deficiencies of his complaint and what was required of an

amended complaint. On December 27, 2006, plaintiff filed an amended complaint and a

document styled, “Motion - Amended Complaint.” The “motion” contains allegations in support

of the complaint. Therefore, the court construes this “motion” as part of the complaint.

 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

and, for the following reasons, finds it fails to state a claim for relief.

////

Case 2:06-cv-01874-LKK -EFB Document 17 Filed 04/10/07 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

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must allege an identified defendant

deprived plaintiff of a right secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States while

acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988). To state a claim that

defendants violated his right to due process, plaintiff allege that an identified state actor denied

plaintiff a specific right protected by the federal constitution without procedures required by the

constitution to ensure fairness, specifying the omission, or deliberately abused his power without

any reasonable justification that he acted in aid of any government interest or objective and only

to oppress in a way that shocks the conscience. Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995);

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-566 (1974); Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952). 

To state a claim that the conditions of imprisonment violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition

on cruel and unusual punishment, plaintiff must allege a specific individual was deliberately

indifferent to some basic human need such as food, clothing, shelter, medical care or safety. See

Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 302-03 (1991); Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). 

A prison official is deliberately indifferent when he knows of and disregards a risk of injury or

harm that “is not one that today’s society chooses to tolerate.” See Helling v. McKinney, 509

U.S. 25, 35 (1993); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).

Plaintiff alleges that when defendant Cate Rapp began working at Solano State Prison,

she intentionally placed a false notation in plaintiff’s central file stating that she and plaintiff

were related. He alleges that as a result, he was placed into administrative segregation for seven

months, until he was transferred to a different institution. Plaintiff has no federally cognizable

interest in being housed at any particular facility or in freedom from administrative segregation. 

See May v. Baldwin, 109 F.3d 557, 565 (9th Cir. 1997); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224

(1976); Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245-49 (1983). Although the court in its order

dismissing plaintiff’s initial complaint explained to plaintiff how to state a claim that the

conditions of confinement violate the Eighth Amendment, plaintiff makes no allegations about

the conditions of administrative segregation.

Case 2:06-cv-01874-LKK -EFB Document 17 Filed 04/10/07 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

Insofar as plaintiff intends to raise a Fourth Amendment claim, his attempt fails. He has

no Fourth Amendment right to freedom from a search of his cell, even if the search may have

been unreasonable. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 525 (1984). Furthermore, an unauthorized

taking of property does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when,

as here, state law provides an adequate post deprivation remedy. Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533;

Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding

that Cal. Gov’t Code § 810 provides such a remedy). Plaintiff alleges that when he was placed

into administrative segregation, he lost his property. It is not clear whether this loss was a result

of a search or whether there is simply a policy of confiscating certain property when a prisoner is

placed in administrative segregation. Nor is it clear whether the taking was unauthorized or

whether the property was returned to him. However, under the applicable law, it does not

matter. 

Plaintiff’s allegations in the first amended complaint are insufficient to state a claim for

relief.

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for plaintiff’s

failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1128

(9th Cir. 2000) (indigent prisoner proceeding without counsel must be given leave to file

amended complaint unless the court can rule out any possibility that the plaintiff could state a

claim).

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 twenty days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

////

////

Case 2:06-cv-01874-LKK -EFB Document 17 Filed 04/10/07 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

4

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: April 10, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01874-LKK -EFB Document 17 Filed 04/10/07 Page 4 of 4