Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05097/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05097-1/pdf.json

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

ROBERT ROY FLOWERS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

R. MACINTIRE, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 14-5097 EDL (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a California state prison proceeding pro se, has filed a pro se civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons stated below, the complaint is DISMISSED.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

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. Id. at

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary;

the statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations and

internal quotation marks omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not

Case 3:14-cv-05097-EDL Document 12 Filed 03/16/15 Page 1 of 3
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

need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his

'entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation

of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to

raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim

to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. 

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. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff states that on September 9, 2014, while he was at the Santa Rita Jail, he

received a card from his wife. However, when plaintiff received the card, he noticed that

the card had been marked up on the inside with notations indicating plaintiff’s housing unit

and assumed alias. Plaintiff asserts that because of these markings, his card was

“basically destroyed.”

Prisoners have a protected interest in their personal property. Hansen v. May, 502

F.2d 728, 730 (9th Cir.1974). However, while an authorized, intentional deprivation of

property is actionable under the Due Process Clause, see Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517,

532, n.13 (1984) (citing Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 435-36 (1982)), “[a]n

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 post-deprivation remedy for the loss is available.” Hudson, 468

U.S. at 533; 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). California law provides such an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Barnett

Case 3:14-cv-05097-EDL Document 12 Filed 03/16/15 Page 2 of 3
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

3

v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 810-895).

Here, plaintiff concedes that the markings were “unnecessary” and “not part of the

mail processing.” Moreover, although markings to indicate an inmate’s housing unit and

alias may be part of a prison policy, it is not plausible to believe that markings intended to

deprive or destroy an inmate’s property are authorized. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (stating that a complaint must be dismissed if it does not proffer

"enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face."). Here, the allegations

clearly indicate that the deprivation of property was unauthorized. As such, plaintiff’s

remedy for such a deprivation is provided by California law, not federal law. Because no

amendment could cure the deficiency discussed above, this action is dismissed with

prejudice for failure to state a claim.

CONCLUSION

The complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. The clerk shall terminate all pending

motions and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March , 2015. 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

P:\PRO-SE\EDL\CR.14\Flowers097dis.wpd

16

Case 3:14-cv-05097-EDL Document 12 Filed 03/16/15 Page 3 of 3