Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-02319/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-02319-0/pdf.json

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOWARD DONTUS LEONARD, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

ROBERT A. HOREL, 

Defendants. _______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 08-2319 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison, has filed a pro se civil

rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several correctional officers at the prison

whom he contends stole various items that he purchased from the prison canteen. 

Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for the value of the allegedly stolen property. The Court

now reviews the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismisses it for failure to

state a cognizable claim for relief. 

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).

Case 3:08-cv-02319-JSW Document 3 Filed 05/30/08 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

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 complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims against the named Defendants for

intentional destruction of his personal property. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a

federal claim for relief under § 1983.

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

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 “stole” personal property that

they were not authorized to take from him, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim

Case 3:08-cv-02319-JSW Document 3 Filed 05/30/08 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

under § 1983 against the named Defendants and must be DISMISSED without prejudice

to Plaintiff bringing his claims in a proper forum. 

CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED for failure to

state a cognizable claim for relief. The Clerk shall close the file and enter judgment in

this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 30, 2008

 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02319-JSW Document 3 Filed 05/30/08 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOWARD LEONARD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ROBERT A. HOREL et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV08-02319 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on May 30, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Howard Leonard

PBSP-II

Pelican Bay State Prison

P O Box 7500

Crescent City, CA 95531

Dated: May 30, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:08-cv-02319-JSW Document 3 Filed 05/30/08 Page 4 of 4