Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00438/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00438-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROLAND THOMAS KOCH,

Plaintiff,

v.

AUDREY KING, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-00438-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

INVESTIGATOR AND DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, 

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 

UNDER SECTION 1983

(Doc. 1)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Screening Order

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

Plaintiff Roland Thomas Koch (“Plaintiff”), a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 20, 2015. The 

Court is required to screen Plaintiff=s complaint and dismiss the case, in whole or in part, if the 

Court determines it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. '

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing 

that the pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are 

not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 

(2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and 

courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 

Case 1:15-cv-00438-SKO Document 6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 1 of 5
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

F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any 

doubt resolved in their favor, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121-23 (9th Cir. 2012); Hebbe 

v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), but Plaintiff=s claims must be facially plausible to 

survive screening, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer 

that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation 

marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer 

possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability 

falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks 

omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II. Discussion

A. Summary of Complaint

Plaintiff is a civil detainee at Coalinga State Hospital in Coalinga, California, and he brings 

this suit against Executive Director Audrey King; Administrators James Walters, Brandon Price, 

and K. Trumbly; Patients’ Rights Advocate Daniel Wagner; and his entire treatment team. 

Plaintiff alleges, in the scantest of terms, that his civil rights are being violated; his personal 

property has been lost, destroyed, and/or confiscated; and procedures governing “punishment” are 

being disregarded. (Doc. 1, Comp., § IV.) Plaintiff seeks the appointment of an investigator, 

damages, and injunctive relief. 

B. Request for Appointment of Investigator

“‘[T]he expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is proper only when 

authorized by Congress. . . .’” Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting 

United States v. MacCollum, 426 U.S. 317, 321, 96 S.Ct. 2086 (1976)). There is no provision for 

the appointment of an investigator to explore Plaintiff’s claims of mistreatment, and his request is 

denied.

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-00438-SKO Document 6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 2 of 5
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

C. Insufficient Allegations to Support Claim for Relief

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or 

other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 

1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); 

Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). “Section 1983 is not itself a source of 

substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere 

conferred.” Crowley v. Nevada ex rel. Nevada Sec’y of State, 678 F.3d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94, 109 S.Ct. 1865 (1989)) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). To state a claim, Plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating the existence of a link, 

or causal connection, between each defendant’s actions or omissions and a violation of his federal 

rights. Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013); 

Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011). 

In this case, Plaintiff fails to set forth any specific facts supporting a plausible claim for 

violation of his federal rights. An unauthorized deprivation of personal property, whether through 

loss, destruction, or confiscation, does not give rise to a viable claim for relief under the Due 

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S.Ct. 

3194 (1984); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994). While authorized, 

intentional deprivations of property are actionable under the Due Process Clause, see Hudson, 468 

U.S. at 532, n.13; Quick v. Jones, 754 F.2d 1521, 1524 (9th Cir. 1985), the Due Process Clause is 

violated only when the agency “prescribes and enforces forfeitures of property without underlying 

statutory authority and competent procedural protections,” Nevada Dept. of Corrections v. Greene, 

648 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Vance v. Barrett, 345 F.3d 1083, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003)) 

(internal quotations omitted). Plaintiff’s conclusory assertion regarding his personal property falls 

well short of stating a viable due process claim.

With respect to the reference to “punishment,” the mere violation of hospital policies or 

procedures does not give rise to a claim for relief under section 1983. See Nurre, 580 F.3d at 1092 

(section 1983 claims must be premised on violation of federal constitutional right); Sweaney v. 

Ada Cnty., Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385, 1391 (9th Cir. 1997) (section 1983 creates cause of action for 

Case 1:15-cv-00438-SKO Document 6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 3 of 5
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

4

violation of federal law); Lovell v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 90 F.3d 367, 370-71 (9th Cir. 1996) 

(Federal and state law claims should not be conflated; to the extent the violation of a state law 

amounts to a deprivation of a state-created interest that reaches beyond that guaranteed by the 

federal Constitution, section 1983 offers no redress.) (quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff, as a 

civil detainee, is entitled to treatment more considerate than that afforded pretrial detainees or 

convicted criminals, Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 931-32 (9th Cir. 2004), and his right to 

constitutionally adequate conditions of confinement is protected by the substantive component of 

the Due Process Clause, Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315, 102 S.Ct. 2452 (1982). 

However, Plaintiff’s complaint is devoid of any facts supporting a claim that he is being subjected 

to conditions that rise to the level of a constitutional violation. 

III. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 

1983. In an abundance of caution, the Court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to file an 

amended complaint. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 

F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(a), but it must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s 

federal rights and liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel under the theory of mere 

respondeat superior, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Starr, 652 F.3d at 1205-07. Although accepted as 

true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative 

level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). Finally, an amended complaint 

supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 

2012) (en banc), and it must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded 

pleading,” Local Rule 220. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of an investigator is denied;

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim

under section 1983;

3. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

Case 1:15-cv-00438-SKO Document 6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 4 of 5
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

5

4. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an 

amended complaint; and

5. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this 

action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 29, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00438-SKO Document 6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 5 of 5