Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00920/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00920-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE REED III,

Plaintiff,

v.

SGT. J. MAYFIELD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-00920-REC-LJO-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON

WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED

(Doc. 1)

I. Findings and Recommendations Following Screening of Complaint

A. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff George Reed III (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on July

18, 2005.

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).

“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 state a

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

///

Case 1:05-cv-00920-REC-LJO Document 12 Filed 03/31/06 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

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467

U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citingConley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt

Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under this

standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg.

Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395

U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

B. Summary of Plaintiff’s Complaint

The events at issue in the instant action allegedly occurred at the California Substance Abuse

Treatment Facility and State Prison-Corcoran, where plaintiff was incarcerated at the time. Plaintiff

names Sergeants J. Mayfield and Pepper, and Correctional Officers Wimer, McGourth, and Caroline

as defendants. Plaintiff is seeking money damages. 

C. Plaintiff’s Due Process Claim

The basis of plaintiff’s claim is the theft of his personal property. Plaintiff alleges that

defendant Wimer improperly stored plaintiff’s property in an unsecured staff restroom, where it was

stolen. 

The Due Process Clause protects prisoners from being deprived of property without due

process of law, Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974), and prisoners have a protected

interest in their personal property. Hansen v. May, 502 F.2d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 1974). However, the

provision for certain procedural protections under state law does not work to enlarge plaintiff’s rights

under federal law. See Sweaney v. Ada County, Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385, 1391 (9th Cir. 1997). Thus,

plaintiff’s allegations concerning defendants’ failure to follow the proper policies and procedures

concerning his personal property do not support a claim for relief under section 1983. Further,

plaintiff has state law remedies available to him with respect to the property deprivation, and as a

result, his claim does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirement of the Due Process 

///

Case 1:05-cv-00920-REC-LJO Document 12 Filed 03/31/06 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

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 530-34 (1984); Barnett v.

Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994). 

D. Conclusion

The court finds that plaintiff’s complaint does not contain a claim upon which relief may be

granted under section 1983. Based on the deficiencies of plaintiff’s claims, the court finds that

justice does not require that leave to amend be granted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th

Cir. 2000). The court therefore HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, with

prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 1983.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00920-REC-LJO Document 12 Filed 03/31/06 Page 3 of 3