Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00975/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00975-2/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUILLERMO TRUJILLO,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

C/O RUIZ, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:14-cv-00975-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO AMEND, WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Doc. 13.)

I. BACKGROUND

Guillermo Trujillo (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action on June 23, 2014. (Doc. 1.) On August 22, 2014 and September 2, 

2014, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

(Docs. 10, 11.) On November 9, 2014, the court issued an order dismissing the Complaint for 

failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (Doc. 11.) On December 1, 2014, Plaintiff filed 

the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 12.) 

On December 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint. 

(Doc. 13.)

Case 1:14-cv-00975-SAB Document 14 Filed 12/30/14 Page 1 of 4
2

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

II. RULE 15(a) – LEAVE TO AMEND

A. Legal Standard

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the 

party=s pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written 

consent of the adverse party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Id. Here, 

because Plaintiff has already amended the complaint once, Plaintiff requires leave of court to 

file a Second Amended Complaint.

ARule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend >shall be freely given when justice so 

requires.=@ AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 445 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 

2006) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). However, courts Aneed not grant leave to amend where 

the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an 

undue delay in the litigation; or (4) is futile.@ Id. The factor of A>[u]ndue delay by itself . . . is 

insufficient to justify denying a motion to amend.=@ Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, 

Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712,13 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58 

(9th Cir. 1999)). 

B. Plaintiff’s Motion

Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint to add allegations that sometime after November 

1, 2013, C/O Boyd did an inventory of Plaintiff’s personal property and “intentionally lost or 

threw away [his] personal property as a result of [C/O Boyd’s] negligence (sic) failure to act 

with reasonable care.” (Motion, Doc. 13 at 2-3 ¶4.) Plaintiff submits evidence that he 

submitted a 602 appeal concerning this matter on November 22, 2013. (Id., Exhibits.)

Property Claims

Prisoners have a protected interest in their personal property. Hansen v. May, 502 F.2d 

728, 730 (9th Cir. 1974). While an authorized, intentional deprivation of property is actionable 

under the Due Process Clause, see Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532, n.13, 104 S.Ct. 3194 

(1984) (citing Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 435-36, 102 S.Ct. 1148 (1982)); 

Quick v. Jones, 754 F.2d 1521, 1524 (9th Cir. 1985), A[a]n unauthorized intentional deprivation 

Case 1:14-cv-00975-SAB Document 14 Filed 12/30/14 Page 2 of 4
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

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, 468 U.S. at 533. 

California Law provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for any property 

deprivations. See Cal. Gov't Code '' 810-895; Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th 

Cir. 1994). California=s Tort Claims Act requires that a tort claim against a public entity or its 

employees be presented to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, 

formerly known as the State Board of Control, no more than six months after the cause of 

action accrues. Cal. Gov=t Code '' 905.2, 910, 911.2, 945.4, 950-950.2 (West 2006). 

Presentation of a written claim, and action on or rejection of the claim are conditions precedent 

to suit. State v. Superior Court of Kings County (Bodde), 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1245, 90 P.3d 116, 

124, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 534, 543 (2004); Mangold v. California Pub. Utils. Comm=n, 67 F.3d 1470, 

1477 (9th Cir. 1995). To state a tort claim against a public employee, a plaintiff must allege 

compliance with the Tort Claims Act. State v. Superior Court, 32 Cal.4th at 1245, 90 P.3d at 

124, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d at 543; Mangold, 67 F.3d at 1477; Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police 

Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 627 (9th Cir. 1988).

Discussion

Plaintiff alleges that C/O Boyd intentionally and negligently lost or discarded his 

personal property, which indicates that the deprivation of property was intentional and 

unauthorized. Thus, Plaintiff=s remedy would be found under California law. Plaintiff has not 

submitted evidence that he complied with California’s Tort Claims Act by presenting a written 

claim concerning this property claim which was acted on or rejected.1 Therefore, the court 

cannot determine whether it would be futile for Plaintiff to bring this property claim in a 

Second Amended Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend shall be

///

 

1

In the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff submits evidence that he filed claims with 

California’s Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board (VCGCB). (Doc. 12 at 8-11, 18.) However, 

there is no evidence that the VCGCB claims concerned his loss of property in November 2013, or that final action 

was taken on the claims.

Case 1:14-cv-00975-SAB Document 14 Filed 12/30/14 Page 3 of 4
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

27

28

denied, without prejudice to renewal of the motion showing evidence of compliance with 

California’s Tort Claims Act. 

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s motion to amend the 

complaint, filed on December 22, 2014, is DENIED, without prejudice to renewal of the 

motion showing evidence of compliance with California’s Tort Claims Act, as discussed in this 

order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 30, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00975-SAB Document 14 Filed 12/30/14 Page 4 of 4