Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00954/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00954-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

BRANLETT EUGENE KIMMONS,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

A. AVILAR, et. al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 14-0954 PJH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §

1983. He has paid the filing fee. 

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). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary;

the statement 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) (citations

omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual

allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] to relief'

Case 3:14-cv-00954-JD Document 7 Filed 04/03/14 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

2

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief

above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)

(citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has recently explained

the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the

framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are

well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine

whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,

679 (2009). 

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 deprivation was committed by a person acting under the

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff states that correctional officers improperly disposed of his personal property.

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 post-deprivation 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.

Case 3:14-cv-00954-JD Document 7 Filed 04/03/14 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

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). 

2 A summons was erroneously issued to defendants (Docket Nos. 5, 6) but defendants

do not need to respond to the complaint unless instructed to by the court at a future date.

3

1994) (citing Cal. Gov't Code §§ 810-895).1

Plaintiff states that several correctional officers removed and disposed of his

medically necessary sunglasses and then went to his cell and disposed of his contact

lenses, cleaning solution, vest, books, and other personal items. Plaintiff seeks the return

of his contact lenses and monetary compensation. As it appears the disposal of his

property was random and unauthorized and as California provides a post-deprivation

remedy the complaint will be dismissed, but plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to

amend. Also, this incident occurred on January 24, 2014, and plaintiff filed this case on

February 7, 2014. While plaintiff states he submitted a first level appeal form, it does not

appear that he fully exhausted the inmate grievance system, which he should also address

in an amended complaint.2

CONCLUSION

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the

standards set forth above. The amended complaint must be filed no later than May 9,

2014, and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words

AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely

replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to

present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not

incorporate material from the original complaint by reference.

2. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) is DENIED as moot as

plaintiff has paid the filing fee.

3. A summons was erroneously issued to defendants (Docket Nos. 5, 6) but

defendants do not need to respond to the complaint unless instructed to by the court at a

future date.

Case 3:14-cv-00954-JD Document 7 Filed 04/03/14 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

4

4. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed

“Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion. 

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2014. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.14\Kimmons0954.dwlta.wpd

Case 3:14-cv-00954-JD Document 7 Filed 04/03/14 Page 4 of 4