Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01732/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01732-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIE T. HILL, ALW972, 

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

OAKLAND POLICE DEP’T, 

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 15-1732 CRB (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Alameda County Jail in Dublin, California, has

filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking relief for allegedly

unlawful deprivation of property seized during the course of his arrest. Plaintiff

specifically alleges that although he was given notice of forfeiture proceedings,

not all of his property is accounted for.

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). The court must identify cognizable

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint

“is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, however. 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Case 3:15-cv-01732-CRB Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 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 2

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 violation was committed by a

person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 US 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

It is well established that the negligent or intentional deprivation of

property by a state actor fails to state a due process claim under § 1983 if the

state 

has an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113,

127-30 (1990) (where state cannot foresee deprivation, and therefore cannot

provide meaningful hearing prior to it, statutory provision for post-deprivation

hearing or common law tort remedy for wrongful deprivation satisfies due

process). California law provides such an adequate post-deprivation remedy in

the forfeiture proceedings for which plaintiff received notice and in its

Government Code. Accord Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir.

1994) (California law provides adequate post-deprivation remedy for

deprivations of property) (citing Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 810-895). Plaintiff’s

remedy lies there and not in a § 1983 action in federal court.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED under the

authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)

The clerk shall enter judgment in favor of defendant and close the file.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 14, 2015 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01732-CRB Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 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 3

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.15\Hill, W.15-1732.dismissal.wpd

Case 3:15-cv-01732-CRB Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 3 of 3