Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00050/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00050-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARON DOUGLAS CASTLIN, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

RICHARD J. KIRKLAND, JEANNE

S. WOODFORD, T. GAMBOA, C.

CULTER, S. C. WHEELER, M. D.

CASTELLAW, C. POLK, R. FLOTO,

N. GRANNIS, 

Defendants. _______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-0050 JSW (PR)

ORDER REVIEWING

COMPLAINT AND REMANDING

CASE TO DEL NORTE COUNTY

SUPERIOR COURT

(Docket No. 2)

On October 5, 2005, Plaintiff, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this pro

se civil rights complaint in Del Norte County Superior Court. Plaintiff's complaint

alleges property claims arising under state and federal law. On January 5, 2006,

Defendants removed the case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446.

Contemporaneous to filing the notice of removal, Defendants have filed a motion seeking

screening of this complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g) (docket no. 2). That motion is

now GRANTED (docket no. 2).

The gravamen of the complaint is that while Plaintiff was in the Security Housing

Unit at Pelican Bay, Defendants disposed of Plaintiff’s “manuscript-artwork, poems,

writings, etc.” without providing Plaintiff with notice and an opportunity to mail home,

donate or dispose of his property, as required under California state regulations. Plaintiff

contends this failure to provide him with notice and a process by which to dispose or

remove his property violated his rights under state law and under the First, Fifth, Sixth

Case 3:06-cv-00050-JSW Document 6 Filed 05/17/06 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

and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution. Plaintiff seeks compensation for

the loss of his property. 

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).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

elements: (1) that a violation of 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. Claims

In his ten page complaint, Plaintiff asserts a claims against the named Defendants

for failing to provide him with the required notice and opportunity to mail or donate his

manuscript before disposing of it as required by state regulations, thereby resulting in the

permanent loss of his property. Although Plaintiff states in the complaint that his claims

arise under the First, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, Plaintiff’s complaint fails

to state a federal claim for relief under those provisions of the Constitution.

Ordinarily, due process of law requires notice and an opportunity for some kind of

hearing prior to the deprivation of a significant property interest. See Memphis Light, Gas

& Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1, 19 (1978). However, 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

Case 3:06-cv-00050-JSW Document 6 Filed 05/17/06 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

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) (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); King v. Massarweh, 782 F.2d 825, 826

(9th Cir. 1986) (same). California law provides such an adequate post-deprivation

remedy. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Cal. Gov't

Code §§ 810-895). Therefore, where a prison official acts in a random and unauthorized

manner to deny an inmate his property (that is, he fails to act in accord with established

prison procedures), the claim must be pursued in state, not federal, court. As Plaintiff

here alleges that prison officials failed to provide him with the required process before

depriving him of his property, Plaintiff fails to state a due process claim. 

Moreover, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to otherwise state a claim for relief under the

Federal Constitution. Although Plaintiff’s complaint states that the action arises under

the First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, there are no allegations in the

complaint which state a claim under those provisions of the Constitution, other than the

due process claim set forth above. The mere fact that the deprivation of property suffered

by Plaintiff was of his written manuscript does not suffice to state a claim under the First

Amendment; nor does Plaintiff make any allegations that appear intended to state a claim

under that Amendment. Moreover, there is nothing in the complaint that appear to refer

to a claim under the Sixth Amendment, as the allegations do not relate to provision of

counsel in a criminal proceeding. Similarly, there is nothing in the complaint that states a

claim under the Fifth Amendment, unless Plaintiff was alluding to the Takings Clause of

the Fifth Amendment. However, Plaintiff does not allege in his ten page complaint either

that the property was “taken” by the state, or that the manuscript was taken for public use. 

Rather, Plaintiff alleges that the prison disposed of his manuscript, which does not state a

Case 3:06-cv-00050-JSW Document 6 Filed 05/17/06 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

claim under the Fifth Amendment. As such, upon this Court’s review, Plaintiff’s

complaint fails to state a claim for relief under federal law. 

C. Jurisdiction

As a general matter, defendants may remove to the appropriate federal district

court "any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United

States have original jurisdiction." Chicago v. Int'l College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156,

163 (1997) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). The propriety of removal thus depends on

whether the case originally could have been filed in federal court. See id. Under 28

U.S.C. § 1331, the district courts have original jurisdiction over cases "arising under the

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Once the case is

removed, the district court has original jurisdiction over the claims arising under federal

law, and may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the accompanying state law claims

so long as those claims constitute "other claims that . . . form part of the same case or

controversy." Id. at 165 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)). However, absent a federal basis

for jurisdiction over some claims, removal of the case to federal court is improper.

In this case, where Defendants have removed a case that fails to state a proper

claim for relief under federal law, federal jurisdiction is now lacking. As such, the Clerk

of Court shall forthwith REMAND this case to the Superior Court of the State of

California in and for the County of Del Norte for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 17, 2006

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00050-JSW Document 6 Filed 05/17/06 Page 4 of 4