Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00071/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00071-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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.Jw\CR.05\taylor71dismissal.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JEFFREY LAMONT TAYLOR,

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WOLFF,

COX, TROTTEA, CATO, GRAY, LANG,

MAZRIO, et al.,

Defendant(s).

 /

NO. C 05-71 JW 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff initiated this civil rights suit on January 6, 2005, and was granted in forma pauperis

status on September 13, 2005. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915A, the Court must now screen the

complaint. 

Plaintiff essentially alleges that Defendants took his cd player/radio and other personal items,

and verbally harassed and threatened him using racial epithets. Defendants’ actions, even if true, do

not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. 

Case 5:05-cv-00071-JW Document 6 Filed 05/09/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 1 Nor is a prisoner protected by the Fourth Amendment against the seizure, destruction or

conversion of his property. See Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F.2d 803, 806 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493

U.S. 868 (1989). 

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jw\CR.05\taylor71dismissal.wpd 2

First, neither the negligent nor intentional deprivation of property states a due process claim

under § 1983 if the deprivation was random and unauthorized,. See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527,

535-44 (1981) (state employee negligently lost prisoner's hobby kit), 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 postdeprivation 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 deprivation satisfies due process); King v.

Massarweh, 782 F.2d 825, 826 (9th Cir. 1986) (same). 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).1

 Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim for deprivation of personal property is not

cognizable under section 1983.

 Second, allegations of verbal harassment and abuse fail to state a claim cognizable under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. See Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 738 (9th Cir. 1997); Rutledge v. Arizona Bd.

of Regents, 660 F.2d 1345, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981), aff'd sub nom. Kush v. Rutledge, 460 U.S. 719

(1983); see, e.g., Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996), amended 135 F.3d 1318 (9th

Cir. 1998) (disrespectful and assaultive comments by prison guard not enough to implicate 8th

Amendment); Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987) (directing vulgar language

at prisoner does not state constitutional claim); Burton v. Livingston, 791 F.2d 97, 99 (8th Cir. 1986)

("mere words, without more, do not invade a federally protected right"); Ellingburg v. Lucas, 518

F.2d 1196, 1197 (8th Cir. 1975) (prisoner does not have cause of action under § 1983 for being

called obscene name by prison employee); Batton v. North Carolina, 501 F. Supp. 1173, 1180

(E.D.N.C. 1980) (mere verbal abuse by prison officials does not state claim under § 1983). This is

Case 5:05-cv-00071-JW Document 6 Filed 05/09/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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.Jw\CR.05\taylor71dismissal.wpd 3

so even if the verbal harassment is racially motivated. See Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1252

(9th Cir. 1982) (federal court cannot order guards to refrain from using racial slurs to harass

prisoners); Burton, 791 F.2d at 101 n.1 (use of racial slurs in prison does not offend Constitution). 

Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. The clerk shall terminate any

pending motions.

Dated: May 8, 2006 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-00071-JW Document 6 Filed 05/09/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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.Jw\CR.05\taylor71dismissal.wpd

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN MAILED TO:

Jeffrey Lamont Taylor

D41759

Salinas Valley State Prison

P. O. Box 1060 

Soledad, Ca 93960-1060

Dated: May 9, 2006 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By:__/s/___________________ Melissa Peralta

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:05-cv-00071-JW Document 6 Filed 05/09/06 Page 4 of 4