Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01736/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01736-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISIDRO RAMOS GALI, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1736 FCD KJM P

vs.

BENJAMIN S. LOVE, et al., 

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff, a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983, has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

This proceeding was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge in accordance with Local Rule

72-302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted an in forma pauperis application that makes the showing

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). However, the in forma pauperis statute permits federal courts

to deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint

that the action is frivolous. Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 1998). In

determining whether an action is frivolous, the court may “pierce the veil of the complaint’s

factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). 

Case 2:07-cv-01736-FCD-KJM Document 7 Filed 11/16/07 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Plaintiff alleges that defendant took money from plaintiff during his arrest and

booked it as evidence. Plaintiff seeks return of the money.

Neither the negligent nor intentional deprivation of property states a due process

claim under § 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). 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). In

California, a criminal defendant may file a non-statutory motion for the return of property seized

incident to arrest that was not introduced into evidence but rather remained in the possession of

the officer who seized it. People v. LaMonte, 53 Cal.App.4th 544, 549 (1997). Because there is

a post-deprivation remedy available, the current action does not state a claim. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma

pauperis be denied and the action be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: November 16, 2007. 

2 gali1736.56

Case 2:07-cv-01736-FCD-KJM Document 7 Filed 11/16/07 Page 2 of 2