Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01494/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01494-1/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

ANDREW RAMIREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEANNIE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01494-OWW-LJO-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION,

WITH PREJUDICE, 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 Andrew Ramirez (“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

November 22, 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-01494-OWW -LJO Document 8 Filed 05/22/06 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

1

 Venue for plaintiff’s claim is proper in the Southern District of California. However, plaintiff opted to file

suit in this district and in light of the fact that plaintiff’s claim is not cognizable, as discussed below, transferring this

action to the Southern District would unnecessarily expend the resources of both courts.

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 Ironwood State Prison in

Blythe, where plaintiff was incarcerated at the time.1 Plaintiff names former California Department

of Corrections Directors Woodford and Alameida, Linda Davis, R. Marsh, M. Hill, Sokolik, Stephen

S. Hall, M. Yamaguchi, M. E. Daniel, and N. Grannis as defendants. Plaintiff is seeking money

damages. 

C. Plaintiff’s Due Process Claim

The basis of plaintiff’s claim against defendants is the negligent loss of his personal property

by prison employees. 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,

Case 1:05-cv-01494-OWW -LJO Document 8 Filed 05/22/06 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

2

 There exist additional deficiencies in plaintiff’s claim with respect to some of the named defendants. 

However, because plaintiff may not pursue a section 1983 claim based on the negligent deprivation of his property,

the court declines to elaborate on the other deficiencies.

3

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

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.2 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 deficiency in plaintiff’s claim, 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). Accordingly, the court 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: May 19, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01494-OWW -LJO Document 8 Filed 05/22/06 Page 3 of 3