Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00312/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00312-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICARDO ZAMBRANO,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. VALDEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-00312 DLB PC

SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A 

CLAIM UNDER SECTION 1983

(Doc. 1)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

Plaintiff Ricardo Zambrano, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 27, 2015. Plaintiff filed a First 

Amended Complaint on April 17, 2015.1

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

governmental entity or an 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). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court 

shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge on May 25, 2015.

Case 1:15-cv-00312-EPG Document 8 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 5
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

state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 

(2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and 

courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 

F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated 

in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). This 

requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere 

possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; 

Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. However, prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are still 

entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. 

Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted).

II. Discussion

A. Summary of Action

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or 

other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 

1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); 

Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). “Section 1983 is not itself a source of 

substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere 

conferred.” Crowley v. Nevada ex rel. Nevada Sec’y of State, 678 F.3d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94, 109 S.Ct. 1865 (1989)) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). To state a claim, Plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating the existence of a link, 

or causal connection, between each defendant’s actions or omissions and a violation of his federal 

Case 1:15-cv-00312-EPG Document 8 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 5
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

rights. Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013); 

Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011). 

In this case, Plaintiff claims that Defendants B. Valdez, A. V. Guerra, M. Seaman, S. 

Tallerico, C. Pfeiffer, and R. Pimentel, violated his right to due process by confiscating his 

television and antenna. Plaintiff alleges that on May 12, 2014, he packed his personal property. 

His property was checked by Defendant Valdez, and the television did not have a hole in it. On 

June 6, 2014, Defendant Guerra inappropriately confiscated the television because it had a hole in 

it. Plaintiff alleges the television was damaged and confiscated in violation of his rights. 

B. Rule 8 and Linkage

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must link the named defendants to the participation in the 

violation at issue. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-49; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 

1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Liability may not be imposed under a theory of 

respondeat superior, and some causal connection between the conduct of each named defendant 

and the violation at issue must exist. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Lemire v. California Dep’t of 

Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013); Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 

896, 915-16 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011).

Plaintiff names six Defendants. Aside from stating that Defendant Valdez checked his 

television and it was intact, and Defendant Guerra confiscated his television when a hole was 

discovered, Plaintiff does not link any other Defendant with any factual allegations. In addition, 

Plaintiff fails to provide sufficient facts to support his legal theories against Defendants Valdez 

and Guerra. Merely reciting that his television was checked by one defendant and found to be 

intact and then seized by another defendant because a hole was discovered is completely 

insufficient to state a claim for relief. Plaintiff need not go into great factual detail, but he must 

supply sufficient facts to allow the Court to screen his complaint, and to allow Defendants to 

understand the claims against them.

C. Due Process Claim

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution 

Case 1:15-cv-00312-EPG Document 8 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 5
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

4

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

418 U.S. 539, 556, 94 S.Ct. 2963 (1974), and Plaintiff has a protected interest in his personal 

property, Hansen v. May, 502 F.2d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 1974). Authorized, intentional deprivations 

of property are actionable under the Due Process Clause, see Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 

532, n.13, 104 S.Ct. 3194 (1984); Quick v. Jones, 754 F.2d 1521, 1524 (9th Cir. 1985), but the 

Due Process Clause is violated only when the agency “prescribes and enforces forfeitures of 

property without underlying statutory authority and competent procedural protections,” Nevada 

Dept. of Corrections v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Vance v. Barrett, 345 

F.3d 1083, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003)) (internal quotations omitted).

Plaintiff alleges that his personal property was damaged and confiscated, but he fails to 

allege any facts supporting a claim that he was denied the procedural process he was due. The fact 

that Plaintiff’s personal property was damaged and confiscated, alone, is not sufficient to support a 

plausible due process claim. Greene, 648 F.3d at 1019.

III. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint fails to state any claims upon which relief may be 

granted under section 1983. In an abundance of caution, the Court will provide Plaintiff with an

opportunity to file a Second Amended Complaint. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th 

Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 

1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated 

claims in his amended complaint, George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007), and 

Plaintiff is cautioned that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v. 

Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be “complete in itself 

without reference to the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 220. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure 

to state a claim;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a

Case 1:15-cv-00312-EPG Document 8 Filed 02/25/16 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Second Amended Complaint; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file a Second Amended Complaint in compliance with this order, 

this action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00312-EPG Document 8 Filed 02/25/16 Page 5 of 5