Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01350/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01350-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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 with Leave to Amend

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\CR.15\01350Smith_dwlta.wpd 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY SMITH,

Plaintiff,

 v.

K. ANCHETA, et. al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 15-01350 EJD (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a state prisoner at San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”), filed the instant

civil rights action in pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis will be granted in a separate written order. 

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

Case 5:15-cv-01350-EJD Document 4 Filed 05/05/15 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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\CR.15\01350Smith_dwlta.wpd 2

immune from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be

liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

1988). 

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 28 U.S.C. §

1915A(b). Failure to state a claim is a grounds for dismissal before service under both

sections 1915A and 1915(e)(2), as well as under Rule 12(b)(6). Dismissal for failure to

state a claim is a ruling on a question of law. See Parks School of Business, Inc., v.

Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1483 (9th Cir. 1995). “The issue is not whether plaintiff will

ultimately prevail, but whether he is entitled to offer evidence to support his claim.” 

Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987).

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 violation was committed by a person acting under the

color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Plaintiff’s Claim

According to the complaint, on December 26, 2012, Defendant Ancheta addressed

Plaintiff in “slang reference” as “Ras Man.” Compl. at 3. Plaintiff informed Defendant

Ancheta that this was improper language and that he would write up Defendant Ancheta

if he was addressed in that manner again. Id. Afterward this exchange, while Plaintiff

was at the law library, Defendants Ancheta and L. Fraire searched his cell and confiscated

and damaged his property. Id. Defendant M. Bloise informed Plaintiff that she

authorized the confiscation of Plaintiff’s property. Id. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief,

compensatory and punitive damages, and any other relief deemed proper. Id.

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, if the deprivation was

Case 5:15-cv-01350-EJD Document 4 Filed 05/05/15 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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\CR.15\01350Smith_dwlta.wpd 3

random and unauthorized, neither the negligent nor intentional deprivation of property

states a due process claim under § 1983. 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 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 post-deprivation 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) (citing Cal. Gov't

Code §§ 810-895).

Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to state a due process claim. Plaintiff does

not allege that he was not provided with notice and a hearing prior to the authorized

deprivation of his property. Therefore his complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 

The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within twenty-eight (28)

days of the date this order is filed, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint using the

court’s form complaint. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case

number used in this order and the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page

and write in the case number for this action, Case No. C 15-01350 EJD (PR). Plaintiff

must answer all the questions on the form in order for the action to proceed. 

Failure to respond in accordance with this order by filing an amended

complaint will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without

further notice to Plaintiff.

Case 5:15-cv-01350-EJD Document 4 Filed 05/05/15 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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\CR.15\01350Smith_dwlta.wpd 4

The Clerk shall include two copies of the court’s complaint with a copy of this

order to Plaintiff.

DATED: 

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge 

5/5/2015

Case 5:15-cv-01350-EJD Document 4 Filed 05/05/15 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

K. ANCHETA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:15-cv-01350-EJD 

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 5/5/2015, 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.

Jerry Smith ID: H44485

San Quentin State Prison

San Quentin, CA 94974 

Dated: 5/5/2015

Richard W. Wieking

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable EDWARD J. DAVILA

Case 5:15-cv-01350-EJD Document 4 Filed 05/05/15 Page 5 of 5