Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02222/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02222-0/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.06\taylor2222dismissal.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NOT FOR CITATION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 BRYANT,

et al.,

Defendant(s). /

NO. C 06-2222 JW 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff initiated this civil rights suit on March 28, 2006. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section

1915A, the Court must now screen the complaint. 

Plaintiff essentially alleges that Defendants took personal property, including a photograph

and legal documents. Defendants’ actions do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. 

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,

Case 5:06-cv-02222-JW Document 5 Filed 05/09/06 Page 1 of 3
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.06\taylor2222dismissal.wpd2

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. 1994) (citing Cal.

Gov't Code §§ 810-895).1

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

cognizable under section 1983.

 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 5:06-cv-02222-JW Document 5 Filed 05/09/06 Page 2 of 3
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.06\taylor2222dismissal.wpd

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

Jeffrey Lamont Taylor

D41759

D-2-125

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 5:06-cv-02222-JW Document 5 Filed 05/09/06 Page 3 of 3