Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06078/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06078-2/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

JACK ALEXANDER BOKIN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF )

CORRECTIONS, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 04-6078 AWI DLB P 

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Pending before the Court is the amended complaint, filed

January 8, 2007.

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

"frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

Case 1:04-cv-06078-AWI-DLB Document 11 Filed 10/03/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2); 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend

may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. 

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9 Cir. 2000) (en banc). th

Plaintiff brings action against Wardens Knowles, Scribner and Sherman, Captain Emigh,

Officers Winkler, Reyes, Rocha, Akdicon, Lowry and Peck.

Plaintiff alleges that he was placed in the Security Housing Unit in violation of his due

process rights as the disciplinary violation he received was not a SHU punishable offense. Plaintiff

contends he has a protected liberty interest in avoiding confinement in the SHU based on the

conditions therein which are atypical and significant. He alleges that defendants Knowles, Scribner,

Sherman, Winkler, Emigh and Reyes were involved in his SHU placement and are therefore

responsible for the denial of his due process rights. Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to state a

cognizable claim against these defendants for violation of his due process rights.

In his amended complaint, plaintiff again alleges that his personal property was given away

by defendants Akdicon and Peck. As plaintiff was previously advised, the Due Process Clause

protects prisoners from being deprived of property without due process of law, Wolff v. McDonnell,

418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974), and prisoners have a protected interest in their personal property. Hansen

v. May, 502 F.2d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 1974). However, the provision for certain procedural

protections under state law does not work to enlarge plaintiff’s rights under federal law. See

Sweaney v. Ada County, Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385, 1391 (9th Cir. 1997). Thus, plaintiff’s allegations

concerning defendants’ failure to follow the proper policies and procedures concerning his personal

property do not support a claim for relief under section 1983. Further, plaintiff has state law

remedies available to him with respect to the property deprivation, and as a result, his claim does not

constitute a violation of the procedural requirement of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 530-34 (1984); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-

17 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Plaintiff has failed to link defendants Rocha and Lowry to any of the complained of conduct. 

Case 1:04-cv-06078-AWI-DLB Document 11 Filed 10/03/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

Plaintiff has not alleged facts linking defendants Rocha and Lowry to any acts or omissions and

therefore the court recommends that these defendants be dismissed from the action. Section 1983

plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between the actions of the defendants and

the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell v. Department of Social

Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A person deprives another of

a constitutional right, where that person ‘does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative

acts, or omits to perform an act which [that person] is legally required to do that causes the

deprivation of which complaint is made.’” Hydrick v. Hunter, No. 03-56712, 2007 WL 2445998, *5

(9th Cir. Aug. 30, 2007) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). “[T]he

‘requisite causal connection can be established not only by some kind of direct, personal

participation in the deprivation, but also be setting in motion a series of acts by others which the

actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury.’” Id.

(quoting Johnson at 743-44). 

In summary, the court finds that plaintiff’s allegations give rise to cognizable claims for

relief under section 1983 against defendants Knowles, Scribner, Sherman, Winkler, Emigh and

Reyes for violating plaintiff’s due process rights. However, the court finds that plaintiff’s

allegations do not give rise to any claims for relief against defendants Rocha, Akdicon, Lowry or

Peck. The court previously provided plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint and

plaintiff was unable to cure deficiencies. Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action proceed only against defendants Knowles, Scribner, Sherman, Winkler,

Emigh and Reyes on plaintiff’s Due Process claims; and

2. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Rocha, Akdicon, Lowry and Peck be dismissed

for failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted and these defendants

be dismissed from this action.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written

Case 1:04-cv-06078-AWI-DLB Document 11 Filed 10/03/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 4

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 3, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06078-AWI-DLB Document 11 Filed 10/03/07 Page 4 of 4