Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01674/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01674-0/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

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.10\Merino674dis.ftsc.wpd 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO MERINO, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

REDWOOD CITY - MAGUIRE COUNTY

JAIL, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 10-1674 RMW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate written order. The

court will DISMISS the instant complaint for failure to state a cognizable claim under § 1983. 

 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, however, be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901

*E-FILED - 8/2/10*

Case 5:10-cv-01674-RMW Document 8 Filed 08/02/10 Page 1 of 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

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.10\Merino674dis.ftsc.wpd 2

F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

 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 deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state

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

B. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff claims that since 2008, due to the negligence of jail guards, plaintiff’s personal

property has been taken from his cell during cell extractions and other types of confrontations

and the guards throw away his belongings. (Complaint at 3.)

Plaintiff is urged to bear in mind that to state a claim under 42 U.S. C. § 1983, he must

allege two elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

violated, and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. 

See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). In order for a complaint to state a claim arising

under federal law, it must be clear from the face of plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint that there

is a federal question. See Easton v. Crossland Mortgage Corp., 114 F.3d 979, 982 (9th Cir.

1997). 

Here, the court finds that plaintiff’s claim of the loss of his personal property is not

cognizable under section 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). Neither the negligent nor

intentional deprivation of property states a due process claim under § 1983 if the deprivation was

random and unauthorized, however. See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535-44 (1981),

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

Case 5:10-cv-01674-RMW Document 8 Filed 08/02/10 Page 2 of 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

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.10\Merino674dis.ftsc.wpd 3

deprivation satisfies due process). 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). 

Although the court generally grants leave to amend after an initial screening of a

complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915A, the court concludes that here, leave would serve no purpose

as a viable civil rights claim cannot be made concerning plaintiff’s allegations concerning the

loss of his personal property. Plaintiff has an adequate state remedy for the random and

unauthorized loss of his personal property. 

Accordingly, the instant complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim

under § 1983. 

CONCLUSION

The instant complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim under §

1983. The clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

7/30/10

Case 5:10-cv-01674-RMW Document 8 Filed 08/02/10 Page 3 of 3