Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03439/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03439-3/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD STEVENS LIBERATORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-3439-TEH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Plaintiff, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed this 

pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The amended

complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and Plaintiff has 

submitted two letters (Docket Nos. 11, 12) that the Court has 

construed as a second amended complaint. 

I

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). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss 

the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint 

“is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a 

defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

Pleadings filed by pro se litigants, however, must be liberally 

construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); 

Case 3:16-cv-03439-TEH Document 13 Filed 10/14/16 Page 1 of 4
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

1990).

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. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

II

Plaintiff presents various allegations regarding the 

confiscation of property and improper medical care.

Neither the alleged negligent nor intentional deprivation of 

property states a due process claim under § 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 v. 

Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (intentional destruction of 

inmate's property). The availability of an adequate state postdeprivation remedy, e.g. a state tort action, precludes relief 

because it provides adequate procedural due process. King v. 

Massarweh, 782 F.2d 825, 826 (9th Cir. 1986). California law 

provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for any property 

deprivations. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 

1994) (citing Cal. Gov't Code §§ 810-895).

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates 

the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual 

punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); McGuckin 

v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other 

Case 3:16-cv-03439-TEH Document 13 Filed 10/14/16 Page 2 of 4
3

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

grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 

(9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). A determination of "deliberate 

indifference" involves an examination of two elements: the 

seriousness of the prisoner's medical need and the nature of the 

defendant's response to that need. Id. at 1059. 

A "serious" medical need exists if the failure to treat a 

prisoner's condition could result in further significant injury 

or the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." Id. The 

existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would 

find important and worthy of comment or treatment; the presence 

of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual's 

daily activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial 

pain are examples of indications that a prisoner has a "serious" 

need for medical treatment. Id. at 1059-60. 

A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he or she 

knows that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm 

and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to 

abate it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The 

prison official must not only “be aware of facts from which the 

inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm 

exists,” but he “must also draw the inference.” Id. If a prison 

official should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then 

the official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how 

severe the risk. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 

(9th Cir. 2002). “A difference of opinion between a prisonerpatient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does 

not give rise to a § 1983 claim.” Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 

1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Case 3:16-cv-03439-TEH Document 13 Filed 10/14/16 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The original and first amended complaints were dismissed 

with leave to amend because it was difficult to discern the exact 

nature of Plaintiff’s allegations. The allegations of the second 

amended complaint are similarly confusing.

To the extent Plaintiff still argues that state officials 

have confiscated or broken his headphones, he has failed to state 

a claim due to the availability of an adequate state postdeprivation remedy. With regard to his medical claims he has 

failed to present plausible allegations concerning how Defendants 

were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Many 

of Plaintiff’s allegations concern medical care in the 1980s and 

1990s which are time barred. To the extent he wishes to 

challenge his denial of parole he must file a habeas petition. 

Plaintiff’s allegations are meritless and frivolous, and fail to 

state a claim. Because no amount of amendment could cure the 

deficiencies in this complaint, the action is dismissed with 

prejudice.

III

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders as 

follows:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice as 

frivolous and for failure to state a claim.

2. The Clerk shall close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/11/2016

________________________

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.16\Liberatore3439.dis.docx

Case 3:16-cv-03439-TEH Document 13 Filed 10/14/16 Page 4 of 4