Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01392/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01392-1/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFRED H. LEMUS, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

KINGS COUNTY SHERIFF 

OFFICE/JAIL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01392-LJO-JLT (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE 

FOR FAILURE/INABILITY TO STATE A 

CLAIM AND IMPOSE A STRIKE PER 28 

U.S.C. §1915(g).

(Doc. 1) 

30-DAY DEADLINE 

Plaintiff complains that he did not receive legal documents that the lawyer for his criminal 

case had delivered to him. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for the loss of those 

documents, which he describes as irreplaceable and completely exculpatory of the criminal 

charges against him. (Id.) For the reasons discussed herein, Plaintiff fails and is unable to state a 

cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 such that this action should be DISMISSED with 

prejudice. 

I. Screening Requirement

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). A

complaint or portion thereof in which a prisoner raises claims that are legally frivolous, 

malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief 

from a defendant who is immune from such relief must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 

Case 1:15-cv-01392-LJO-JLT Document 8 Filed 03/03/16 Page 1 of 8
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

1915A(b)(1),(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). 

Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or 

immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. 

Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983 is not itself a source of 

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

elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989). To state a claim under § 1983, a 

plaintiff must meet 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); Ketchum v. Alameda 

Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).

A. Summary of the Complaint

Plaintiff alleges that the attorney defending him in his criminal action had some legal 

documents delivered to him, which he never received. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that Clerks 

Vivian and Judy Leoni were grossly negligent when they lost those documents. (Id., p. 3.) He 

alleges that Sheriff David Robinson and Commander Kim Pedreiro dictate and regulate all 

policies and procedures within the Kings County Jail and that they bear the responsibility for the 

negligence of Vivian and Judy. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Deputy Vicky Hernandez is in charge 

of the mail area.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that the envelope with the documents clearly identified

Plaintiff and were confirmed received. (Id., at p. 4.) Plaintiff states that the loss/handling of his 

legal documents violate the policies and procedures for handling legal mail that is received at the 

Kings Counry Jail, “which falls under Sheriff David Robinson and Commander Kim Pedreiro 

appointed responsibility.” (Id.) Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. 

Plaintiff may be able to pursue his allegations under state law, but as discussed in greater 

detail below, they do not rise to the level of a cognizable claim under § 1983 such that this action 

should be DISMISSED with prejudice. 

B. Pleading Requirements

1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)

"Rule 8(a)'s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited 

Case 1:15-cv-01392-LJO-JLT Document 8 Filed 03/03/16 Page 2 of 8
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

exceptions," none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 

U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). A complaint must contain "a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). 

"Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and 

the grounds upon which it rests." Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. 

Detailed factual allegations are not required, but A[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 (2009), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). 

Plaintiff must set forth Asufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to >state a claim that is 

plausible on its face.=@ Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Factual 

allegations are accepted as true, but legal conclusions are not. Iqbal. at 678; see also Moss v. U.S. 

Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009); Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-557. 

While Aplaintiffs [now] face a higher burden of pleadings facts . . . ,@ Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 

580 F.3d 949, 977 (9th Cir. 2009), the pleadings of pro se prisoners are still construed liberally 

and are afforded the benefit of any doubt. Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 

2013); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). However, "the liberal pleading 

standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff's factual allegations," Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 

n.9 (1989), "a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 

of the claim that were not initially pled," Bruns v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 

1257 (9th Cir. 1997) quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982), and courts 

are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences, Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 

681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The “sheer possibility that a 

defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a 

defendant’s liability” fall short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; 

Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. Plaintiff must identify specific facts supporting the existence of 

substantively plausible claims for relief, Johnson v. City of Shelby, __ U.S. __, __, 135 S.Ct. 346, 

347 (2014) (per curiam) (citation omitted).

/ / /

Case 1:15-cv-01392-LJO-JLT Document 8 Filed 03/03/16 Page 3 of 8
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

II. Analysis

A. Plaintiff's Claims

1. Due Process

Authorized, intentional deprivations of property are actionable under the Due Process 

Clause. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532, n. 13 (1984); Quick v. Jones, 754 F.2d 1521, 

1524 (9th Cir. 1985). However, 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). There is no cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an unauthorized deprivation of 

property, either intentional or negligent, by a government employee if a meaningful state postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available. Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533. California law provides an 

adequate post-deprivation remedy for any property deprivations. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 

816-817 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Cal. Gov=t Code '' 810-895). Here, Plaintiff admits that the acts, 

whether intentional or negligent, by Clerks Vivian and Judy which resulted in the loss of his legal 

documents, violated Kings County Jail’s policies and procedures. Thus, he has no action under 

the Due Process Clause for the loss of the legal documents that his attorney had delivered to him. 

2. Equal Protection

“To state a ' 1983 claim for violation of the Equal Protection Clause a plaintiff must show 

that the defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff based upon 

membership in a protected class.” Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1166-67 (9th 

Cir. 2005) (citation and quotations omitted). “The first step in equal protection analysis is to 

identify the [defendants’ asserted] classification of groups.” Id. (quoting Freeman v. City of 

Santa Ana, 68 F.3d 1180, 1187 (9th Cir.1995)). The groups must be comprised of similarly 

situated persons so that the factor motivating the alleged discrimination can be identified. Id. An 

equal protection claim will not lie by “conflating all persons not injured into a preferred class 

receiving better treatment” than the plaintiff. Id. (quoting Joyce v. Mavromatis, 783 F.2d 56, 57 

(6th Cir.1986)). 

Case 1:15-cv-01392-LJO-JLT Document 8 Filed 03/03/16 Page 4 of 8
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

If the action in question does not involve a suspect classification, a plaintiff may establish 

an equal protection claim by showing that similarly situated individuals were intentionally treated 

differently without a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose. Village of Willowbrook v. 

Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000); San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1972); 

Squaw Valley Development Co. v. Goldberg, 375 F.3d 936, 944 (9th Cir.2004); Sea River Mar. 

Fin. Holdings, Inc. v. Mineta, 309 F.3d 662, 679 (9th Cir. 2002). To state an equal protection 

claim under this theory, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) the plaintiff is a member of an 

identifiable class; (2) the plaintiff was intentionally treated differently from others similarly 

situated; and (3) there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment. Village of Willowbrook, 

528 U.S. at 564. Further, to establish a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, the prisoner 

must present evidence of discriminatory intent. See Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239-240 

(1976); Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1081-82 (9th Cir. 2003); Freeman v. Arpio, 125 F.3d 

732, 737 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Plaintiff fails to state any information to show his membership in a protected class. He 

does not show that he was treated differently from others similarly situated. He does not show 

any discriminatory intent on the part of any of the named defendants. Thus, he does not state a 

cognizable Equal Protection claim.

3. Search and Seizure -- Heck bar

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from illegal search and seizure. Plaintiff 

alleges that the loss of his legal documents amount to an illegal search and seizure under the 

Fourth Amendment. Plaintiff further alleges that those documents contained “exculpatory 

evidence in the form of hand written ‘letters’ along with [his] documents and legal paperwork that 

were discarded/lost, this evidence directly opposed [his] guilt and exonerated [him] of all 

allegations. This loss is very detrimental and crippling to [his] case in proving [his] innocence, 

the evidence lost cannot be replaced.” 

However, the Fourth Amendment is not implicated under the circumstances alleged -- that 

an envelope of documents was received by jail personnel who then lost, misplaced, or destroyed 

it. The Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, 

Case 1:15-cv-01392-LJO-JLT Document 8 Filed 03/03/16 Page 5 of 8
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

papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures -- without warrants that are based 

on probable cause. “[T]he fourth amendment does not protect an inmate from the seizure and 

destruction of his property.” Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F.2d 803, 806 (9th Cir. 1989) (emphasis 

added). “This does not mean a prisoner is without redress; it simply means a prisoner’s form of 

redress is through the fifth and fourteenth amendments.” Id.

Further, to the extent that the allegedly “seized” documents relate to the pending criminal 

case against Plaintiff and to the extent he claims he suffered a criminal conviction as a result for 

which he seeks redress in this action, Heck bars this claim. See Szajer v. City of Los Angeles, 632 

F.3d 607, 611-12 (9th Cir. 2011) (Heck applies to Fourth Amendment claims) (citing Whitaker v. 

Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 583-84 (9th Cir. 2007) (section 1983 challenge to “search and seizure of 

the evidence upon which [defendants’] criminal charges and convictions were based barred by 

Heck) and Harvey v. Waldron, 210 F.3d 1008, 1015 (9th Cir. 2000) (claim “alleging illegal search 

and seizure of evidence upon which criminal charges are based does not accrue until the criminal 

charges have been dismissed or the conviction has been overturned.”) (overruled in part on other 

grounds by Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393-94, 127 S.Ct. 1091 (2007))). Plaintiff fails to 

allege or show that the criminal charges have been dismissed or the conviction has been 

overturned, which bars Plaintiff from bringing any such claims under § 1983. Thus, Plaintiff’s 

allegations that he never received the legal documents his attorney had delivered to him do not 

state a cognizable claim under the Fourth Amendment. 

4. Supervisory Liability

It appears that Plaintiff named Sheriff David Robinson, Commander Kim Pedreiro, and 

Deputy Vicky Hernandez as defendants in this action because they hold supervisory positions. 

Generally, supervisory personnel are not liable under section 1983 for the actions of their 

employees under a theory of respondeat superior. Rather, there must be allegations supporting a 

direct causal link between the supervisor and the claimed constitutional violation must be 

specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 

589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). To state a claim for relief 

under section 1983 based on a theory of supervisory liability, Plaintiff must facts that would 

Case 1:15-cv-01392-LJO-JLT Document 8 Filed 03/03/16 Page 6 of 8
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

support a claim that supervisory defendants either: personally participated in the alleged 

deprivation of constitutional rights; knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them; or 

promulgated or "implemented a policy so deficient that the policy 'itself is a repudiation of 

constitutional rights' and is 'the moving force of the constitutional violation.'" Hansen v. Black, 

885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal citations omitted); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 

(9th Cir. 1989). Under section 1983, liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel for 

the actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677. "In 

a § 1983 suit or a Bivens action - where masters do not answer for the torts of their servants - the 

term 'supervisory liability' is a misnomer." Id. 

The Supreme Court has rejected liability on the part of supervisors for “knowledge and 

acquiescence” in subordinates’ wrongful discriminatory acts. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 

677 (2009) (“[R]espondent believes a supervisor’s mere knowledge of his subordinate’s 

discriminatory purpose amounts to the supervisor’s violating the Constitution. We reject this 

argument.”) However, “discrete wrongs B for instance, beatings B by lower level Government 

actors . . . if true and if condoned by [supervisors] could be the basis for some inference of 

wrongful intent on [the supervisor’s] part.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 683. Further, the Ninth Circuit 

recently held that where the applicable constitutional standard is deliberate indifference, a 

plaintiff may state a claim for supervisory liability based upon the supervisor’s knowledge of and 

acquiescence in unconstitutional conduct by others. Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2011). 

It is under this rubric that the traditional and still valid elements of supervisor liability within the 

Ninth Circuit are properly analyzed. Thus, Plaintiff=s allegations that Sheriff David Robinson, 

Commander Kim Pedreiro, and Deputy Vicky Hernandez are somehow liable because their 

subordinates violated Plaintiff's rights are not cognizable. 

5. State Law Claims

Plaintiff may be able to pursue this action under California law in state court. However, 

the Court is unable to adjudicate the state law claims absent federal jurisdiction. 

III. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a cognizable claim under federal law against any of the 

Case 1:15-cv-01392-LJO-JLT Document 8 Filed 03/03/16 Page 7 of 8
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

named Defendants. Given the nature of Plaintiff’s allegations, the deficiencies in Plaintiff's 

pleading are not capable of being cured through amendment, Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 

1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012), and Plaintiff should not be given leave to amend his section 1983 claims.

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this entire action be dismissed with 

prejudice and that this dismissal count as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within 30 

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned AObjections to Magistrate Judge=s 

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

specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 

839 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01392-LJO-JLT Document 8 Filed 03/03/16 Page 8 of 8