Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01575/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01575-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\RMW\CR.15\Solares575dis.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INOCENCIO J. SOLARES, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

M.E. SPEARMAN,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 15-1575 RMW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted in a

separate order. For the reasons stated below, the court dismisses the complaint for failure to

state a claim.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in 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 that 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. § 1915A(b)(1),

(),/('

Case 5:15-cv-01575-RMW Document 4 Filed 08/11/15 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

27

28

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\RMW\CR.15\Solares575dis.wpd 2

(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that

the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v.

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

B. Plaintiff’s Claims

In plaintiff’s complaint, he alleges that he was removed from general population and

placed in administrative segregation. During that time, plaintiff’s property was stored for him,

and when plaintiff returned to general population, plaintiff received his property. Upon receipt,

however, plaintiff noticed that several items were missing. For example, plaintiff’s wedding

band, a compact disc player, headphones, a digital television, and other items. Plaintiff has

requested the return of this property, but the prison refuses to respond. Plaintiff claims that the

Warden violated state regulations, and is responsible for compensating plaintiff. 

Ordinarily, due process of law requires notice and an opportunity for some kind of

hearing prior to the deprivation of a significant property interest. See Memphis Light, Gas &

Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1, 19 (1978). However, neither the negligent nor intentional

deprivation of property states 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). Rather, 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 postdeprivation 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)

Case 5:15-cv-01575-RMW Document 4 Filed 08/11/15 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

27

28

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\RMW\CR.15\Solares575dis.wpd 3

(citing Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 810-895).

Accordingly, plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to state a federal constitutional claim. 

CONCLUSION

This action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim because no amount

of amendment would cure the deficiencies of the complaint. The Clerk shall enter judgment and

close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: RONALD M. WHYTE 

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-01575-RMW Document 4 Filed 08/11/15 Page 3 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INOCENCIO J SOLARES et al,

Plaintiff,

 v.

M.E. SPEARMAN et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV15-01575 RMW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on August 11, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Inocencio J Solares D-10120

Correctional Training Facility (CTF)

Post Office Box 686

Soledad, CA 93960

Dated: August 11, 2015

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jackie Lynn Garcia, Deputy Clerk

Case 5:15-cv-01575-RMW Document 4 Filed 08/11/15 Page 4 of 4