Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02567/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02567-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND KIZZEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

Capt. G. ZAVALA; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-2567 MHP (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Raymond Kizzee, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, Kizzee alleges that correctional officers

lost, misplaced or stole his television set after it was confiscated in a cell search. His

complaint is now before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A.

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental

entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable

claims, and dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from

such relief. See id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See

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

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins,

Case 3:07-cv-02567-MHP Document 6 Filed 08/07/07 Page 1 of 2
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

2

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

Allegations of negligent or intentional deprivation of property do not state a due

process claim under Section 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 adequate procedural due process. See King v.

Massarweh, 782 F.2d 825, 826 (9th Cir. 1986). California law provides an adequate postdeprivation remedy for any property deprivations. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d at 816-17

(citing Cal. Gov't Code §§ 810-895). 

Kizzee's allegations that his personal property was wrongfully lost, misplaced,

damaged, or stolen by correctional officers are of a random and unauthorized deprivation of

property and therefore are not cognizable under Section 1983. His property claim may be

cognizable under state law, but such a claim must be brought in state court rather than in

federal court. 

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2007 ______________________

 Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02567-MHP Document 6 Filed 08/07/07 Page 2 of 2