Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00014/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00014-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JON LLOYD HOUSTON, II,

Plaintiff,

v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S 

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-0014 KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983, and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). Plaintiff amended his complaint as of right prior to the court’s screening. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 15. Thus, plaintiff’s second amended complaint is the operative pleading. 

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 

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

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Case 2:16-cv-00014-KJN Document 11 Filed 03/11/16 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

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 

2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 

meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 

1227.

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a 

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations 

sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555. However, “[s]pecific 

facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what 

the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 

(2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal quotations marks omitted). 

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the 

complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the pleading in the light most 

favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other 

grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984).

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Sheriff’s Deputy McCune took from plaintiff ten 12x18 

writings and drawings. Plaintiff states that the deprivation was unauthorized and intentional. 

(ECF No. 9 at 4.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant Sheriff’s Deputy J. Harris “made false 

statements about plaintiff’s property and the material it depicted.” (ECF No. 9 at 5.) Plaintiff 

names the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department as a defendant, but includes no charging 

allegations against the county. (Id., passim.) 

Case 2:16-cv-00014-KJN Document 11 Filed 03/11/16 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

The United States Supreme Court has held that “an unauthorized intentional deprivation 

of property by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of 

the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for 

the loss is available.” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). Thus, where the state 

provides a meaningful postdeprivation remedy, only authorized, intentional deprivations 

constitute actionable violations of the Due Process Clause. An authorized deprivation is one 

carried out pursuant to established state procedures, regulations, or statutes. Piatt v. McDougall, 

773 F.2d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Knudson v. City of Ellensburg, 832 F.2d 1142, 

1149 (9th Cir. 1987).

In the instant case, plaintiff concedes the deprivation was unauthorized. The California 

Legislature has provided a remedy for tort claims against public officials in the California 

Government Code, §§ 900, et seq. Because plaintiff has not attempted to seek redress in the state 

system, he cannot sue in federal court on the claim that the state deprived him of property without 

due process of the law. The court concludes that this claim must, therefore, be dismissed as 

frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s second 

amended complaint is dismissed as frivolous, and the court declines to grant plaintiff leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 7). 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

Dated: March 11, 2016

/hous0014.26

Case 2:16-cv-00014-KJN Document 11 Filed 03/11/16 Page 3 of 3