Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00359/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00359-2/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

K:\COM M ON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\11cv0359-Dismiss FAC.w1pd 11cv0359 AJB (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFRED BURRELL,

CDCR #T-04303, Civil No. 11cv0359 AJB (BLM)

Plaintiff, ORDER:

(1) DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AS MOOT [ECF No. 10]; and 

(2) DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT FOR FAILING TO

STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT TO 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) 

& 1915A(b)

vs.

OSUNA, Correctional Officer;

HOGAN, Correctional Officer;

DOYL, Correctional Officer;

DOMINGO URIBE, Jr., Warden,

Defendants.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 18, 2011, Plaintiff, a state inmate currently incarcerated at the California

Men’s Colony located in San Luis Obispo, California, and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights

Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff did not prepay the $350 filing fee mandated

by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”)

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [ECF No.2].

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-00359-AJB-BLM Document 11 Filed 07/20/11 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

K:\COM M ON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\11cv0359-Dismiss FAC.w2pd 11cv0359 AJB (BLM)

On March 21, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP but sua sponte

dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) &

1915A(b). See Mar. 21, 2011 Order at 6-7. Plaintiff was granted leave to file an Amended

Complaint in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court. Id. at 7.

Instead of filing an Amended Complaint, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration. However,

the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion as he set forth no coherent grounds upon which he was

seeking reconsideration. See Apr. 27, 2011 Order at 3. On June 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed his First

Amended Complaint (“FAC”), along with a second Motion to Proceed IFP. However, because

the Court has previously granted Plaintiff’s first Motion to Proceed IFP, this Motion [ECF No.

10] is DENIED as moot. 

II. SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b)

The Prison Litigation Reform Act’s amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 obligates the Court

to review complaints filed by all persons proceeding IFP and by those, like Plaintiff, who are

“incarcerated or detained in any facility [and] accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated

delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial

release, or diversionary program,” “as soon as practicable after docketing.” See 28 U.S.C. §§

1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). Under these provisions, the Court must sua sponte dismiss any

prisoner civil action and all other IFP complaints, or any portions thereof, which are frivolous,

malicious, fail to state a claim, or which seek damages from defendants who are immune. See

28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A; Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000)

(en banc) (§ 1915(e)(2)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446 n.1 (9th Cir. 2000) (§ 1915A).

Before amendment by the PLRA, the former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) permitted sua sponte

dismissal of only frivolous and malicious claims. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126, 1130. However, 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A now mandate that the court reviewing an IFP or prisoner’s suit

make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing that the Complaint be served by the

U.S. Marshal pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2). Id. at 1127 (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits,

but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a

claim.”); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (discussing

Case 3:11-cv-00359-AJB-BLM Document 11 Filed 07/20/11 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

K:\COM M ON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\11cv0359-Dismiss FAC.w3pd 11cv0359 AJB (BLM)

§ 1915A). 

“[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all

allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff.” Resnick, 213 F.3d at 447; Barren, 152 F.3d at 1194 (noting that § 1915(e)(2)

“parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”). Here, however, even

presuming Plaintiff’s allegations true, the Court finds his Complaint fails to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B); 1915A(b); Lopez, 203 F.3d at

1126-27; Resnick, 213 F.3d at 446, n.1.

A. 42 U.S.C. § 1983

To state a claim under § 1983, Plaintiff must allege that: (1) the conduct he complains

of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) that conduct violated a

right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Humphries v. County of Los

Angeles, 554 F.3d 1170, 1184 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988)).

B. Property Claims

Plaintiff’s only allegations in his First Amended Complaint are allegations that prison

officials confiscated his personal cosmetics and refused to give him the chance to mail his

property home rather than destroy it. (See FAC at 2-5.) However, as the Court previously

informed Plaintiff, where a prisoner alleges the deprivation of a liberty or property interest

caused by the unauthorized negligent or intentional action of a prison official, the prisoner

cannot state a constitutional claim where the state provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy.

See Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 129-32 (1990); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533

(1984). The California Tort Claims Act (“CTCA”) provides an adequate post-deprivation state

remedy for the random and unauthorized taking of property. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813,

816-17 (9th Cir. 1994). Thus, Plaintiff has an adequate state post-deprivation remedy and his

claims relating to the taking of his property are not cognizable in this § 1983 action, and must

be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b)(1).

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-00359-AJB-BLM Document 11 Filed 07/20/11 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

K:\COM M ON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\11cv0359-Dismiss FAC.w4pd 11cv0359 AJB (BLM)

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [ECF No.10]

is DENIED as moot.

2. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint [ECF No. 9] is DISMISSED without

prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(b) and § 1915A(b). The Court finds further amendment would be futile. See Cahill

v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996) (denial of a leave to amend is not an

abuse of discretion where further amendment would be futile); see also Robinson v. California

Bd. of Prison Terms, 997 F. Supp. 1303, 1308 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (“Since plaintiff has not, and

cannot, state a claim containing an arguable basis in law, this action should be dismissed without

leave to amend; any amendment would be futile.”) (citing Newland v. Dalton, 81 F.3d 904, 907

(9th Cir. 1996)).

3. IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED that an IFP appeal from this final order of

dismissal would not appear to be taken “in good faith” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550 (9th

Cir. 1977) (indigent appellant is permitted to proceed IFP on appeal only if appeal would not be

frivolous).

The Clerk shall close the file.

DATED: July 20, 2011

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00359-AJB-BLM Document 11 Filed 07/20/11 Page 4 of 4