Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02083/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02083-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN LAKE,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. WEISS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-2083 KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. On October 31, 2019, plaintiff’s 

complaint raising multiple unrelated and improperly-joined claims was dismissed and plaintiff 

was granted leave to file an amended complaint. On December 17, 2019, plaintiff was granted 

sixty days in which to file an amended complaint that complies with the October 31, 2019 order. 

On January 3, 2020, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Petition for Writ of Replevin.” 

(ECF No. 14.) In his petition, filed on a state court form, plaintiff appears to raise claims of lost 

and destroyed personal property and seeks monetary and injunctive relief under California Penal 

Code §§ 1258, 1259, and 1536. 

However, as plaintiff was previously informed in the court’s screening order, the United 

States Supreme Court has held that “an unauthorized intentional deprivation 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 

Case 2:19-cv-02083-MCE-KJN Document 15 Filed 01/13/20 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

2

available.” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). The negligent or intentional 

deprivation of property fails to state a cognizable due process claim under section 1983 if the 

deprivation was random and unauthorized. 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, 468 U.S. at 533 (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 prisoners with 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 the deprivation, a statutory provision for post-deprivation hearing or a 

state common law tort remedy for erroneous deprivation satisfies due process); King v. 

Massarweh, 782 F.2d 825, 826 (9th Cir. 1986) (same). The Ninth Circuit has long recognized 

that California law provides such an adequate post-deprivation remedy. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 

F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 810-895).

Deprivations of property resulting from negligence, or “mere lack of due care” do not 

deny due process at all, and must be redressed through a state court damages action. See Daniels, 

474 U.S. at 328 (“[T]he Due Process Clause is simply not implicated by a negligent act of an 

official causing unintended loss of or injury to life, liberty, or property.”); Daniels, 474 U.S. at 

330 (“‘To hold that this kind of loss is a deprivation of property within the meaning of the 

Fourteenth Amendment seems not only to trivialize, but grossly to distort the meaning and intent 

of the Constitution.’” (quoting Parratt, 451 U.S. at 545 (Stewart, J., concurring)). In fact, the 

Supreme Court has explicitly warned against turning the Fourteenth Amendment and § 1983 into 

a “font of tort law to be superimposed upon whatever systems may already be administered by the 

States.” See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 701 (1976) (“the procedural guarantees of the Due 

Process Clause cannot be the source for [tort] law.”)

Because plaintiff contends he was deprived of personal property, any remedy he may have 

lies in state court, not federal court. In other words, plaintiff must seek redress through the 

California courts. Based on such binding authorities, and the fact that plaintiff was previously 

advised that he could not pursue such property claims in federal court, the court concludes that 

Case 2:19-cv-02083-MCE-KJN Document 15 Filed 01/13/20 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

3

the petition for writ of replevin was improperly filed in this court. Therefore, the undersigned 

declines to construe such filing as plaintiff’s amended civil rights complaint because it does not 

comply with the October 31, 2019 order, and the petition is disregarded. Plaintiff is granted an 

extension of time to file an amended complaint that complies with the court’s October 31, 2019 

order.

In addition, plaintiff appended a copy of the court’s last order on which plaintiff 

complains that the January 3, 2010 order contained “no teeth,” apparently because the court did 

not order the litigation coordinator or the supervising deputy attorney general to meet with 

plaintiff by a date certain. However, because there is no operative complaint on file, the court has 

no jurisdiction to issue such an order at this time. Moreover, it appears that plaintiff has now 

received at least some of his property.

Importantly, because plaintiff has not yet identified the specific claims he intends to 

pursue in this action, it is unclear whether plaintiff needs any of his personal property in order to 

file a proper pleading in this case.1 Prisoners are not required to cite legal authority, including 

cases or statutes, in the initial pleading. Rather, plaintiff is only required to name and sufficiently 

identify each defendant, identify the federal cause of action or constitutional violation and set 

forth the facts that demonstrate his constitutional rights were violated by each named defendant. 

Indeed, the court provides state prisoners with a civil rights complaint form which plaintiff may 

use to identify his claims and articulate the facts supporting such claims in a concise fashion. The 

court will direct the Clerk of Court to provide plaintiff with a copy of his initial complaint filed in 

this action should the pleading assist plaintiff in filing his amended complaint. Due to the 

difficulties plaintiff has recently experienced, plaintiff is granted sixty days in which to file the 

amended complaint. 

////

////

 

1

 In addition, it is unclear whether any particular document he may need was destroyed by water 

damage and therefore may be unattainable in any event. Nevertheless, plaintiff is not required to 

submit exhibits at the pleading stage. Plaintiff need only assert the factual basis for each claim.

Case 2:19-cv-02083-MCE-KJN Document 15 Filed 01/13/20 Page 3 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

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The improperly-filed petition for writ of replevin (ECF No. 14) is disregarded;

2. Plaintiff is granted sixty days from the date of this order in which to file an amended 

complaint that complies with the October 31, 2019 order; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of his original complaint 

(ECF No. 1), as well as the form for filing a civil rights complaint by a prisoner.

Dated: January 13, 2020

lake2083.26r

Case 2:19-cv-02083-MCE-KJN Document 15 Filed 01/13/20 Page 4 of 4