Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02604/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02604-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANA DEMETRIUS BAIRFIELD,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2604 WBS DAD P

vs.

CRIMINAL RESPONSE TEAM, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Solano County Jail, is proceeding pro se with a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff was initially identified as one of five

plaintiffs in Perry v. Criminal Response Team, CIV S-06-2070 WBS DAD P. On November 20,

2006, the court ordered that the claims of the plaintiffs in that action be severed and each plaintiff

was ordered to proceed in his own action, to file an amended complaint, and to either pay the

filing fee or an application requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Before the court is

plaintiff Bairfield’s amended complaint and in forma pauperis application.

The court is required to screen complaints brought by inmates seeking relief

against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the inmate has raised

claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be

Case 2:06-cv-02604-WBS-DAD Document 7 Filed 10/09/07 Page 1 of 4
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

2

granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 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 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where 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); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A claim should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted only if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the

claim that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); 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. See Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees,

425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976). The court must also construe the pleading in the light most favorable

to the plaintiff and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S.

411, 421 (1969).

Here, plaintiff contends that on October 8, 2006, the Criminal Response Team at

the Solano County Jail conducted cell extractions and body searches of all inmates in the 

I-module on the fourth floor of the jail. Plaintiff alleges that the Response Team appeared in full

riot gear and assault weapon without a supervising officer. Following this search, plaintiff

claims that he discovered that his “religious gold chain and cross came up missing.” (Compl. at

5.) Plaintiff seeks the following relief: “I would like the court’s [sic] to act on helping me have

the CRT replace my religious gold chain and cross.” (Id.)

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02604-WBS-DAD Document 7 Filed 10/09/07 Page 2 of 4
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

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 has not alleged any facts suggesting that the alleged

deprivation of property was authorized. The California Legislature has provided a remedy for

tort claims against public officials in the California Government Code, §§ 900, et seq. Since

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(d). 

In light of these findings and recommendations, the court will not rule on plaintiff’s application

requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for

failure to state a claim. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

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

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

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02604-WBS-DAD Document 7 Filed 10/09/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

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

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: October 5, 2007.

DAD:4

bair2604.56

Case 2:06-cv-02604-WBS-DAD Document 7 Filed 10/09/07 Page 4 of 4