Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00049/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00049-0/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

HERMAN T. JOHNSON, JR.

Plaintiff,

v.

B. VIKJORD, et. al., 

Defendants.

 /

CV-06-0049 OWW LJO P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS FEDERAL CLAIM AND REMAND

ACTION BACK TO STATE COURT (Doc. 1.) 

This is a civil action filed by Plaintiff Herman T. Johnson, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), a state

prisoner proceeding in pro per. The action was removed from the Kings County Superior Court

to this Court by Defendants Vikjord, et., al., (“Defendants”) on January 11, 2006. 

A. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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

Case 1:06-cv-00049-OWW -GBC Document 6 Filed 01/24/06 Page 1 of 5
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

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). 

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), citing Conley 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 COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint, that Defendants entered Plaintiff’s cell quarters on May

13, 2003, and removed Plaintiff’s personal property. (Complaint at 4.) Plaintiff is seeking

declaratory and monetary relief under the “California Tort Claims Act for “personal injury,

property damage, negligence and denial of due process of property and liberty interest, in

violation of the Constitution of the State of California, Title 15 of the California Code of

Regulations, Penal Code and Constitution of the United States.” (Complaint at 1.) 

C. FEDERAL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

As noted above, Defendants removed this action from the Kings County Superior Court

on the grounds that the action was a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However,

Defendants’ characterization of the allegations in the Complaint as federal constitutional claims

only under Section 1983 is not wholly supported by a review of the Complaint. Libhart v. Santa

Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 1979) (existence of federal jurisdiction

determined by the complaint at the time of removal). Plaintiff, who has filed numerous actions

Case 1:06-cv-00049-OWW -GBC Document 6 Filed 01/24/06 Page 2 of 5
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

1The Court may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate and ready determination by resort

to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United States v. Bernal-Obeso,

989 F.2d 331, 333 (9th Cir. 1993). Judicial notice may be taken of court records. Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80

F.R.D. 626, 635 n. 1 (N.D.Cal.1978), aff'd, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.); see also Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 F.2d

1236, 1239 (4th Cir. 1989); Rodic v. Thistledown Racing Club, Inc., 615 F.2d 736, 738 (6th Cir. 1980). Accordingly,

the Court takes judicial notice of the following Section 1983 cases filed by Plaintiff: Johnson v. Dang, CV F 03-5228

OWW WMW P; Johnson v. Scribner, CV F 04-6311 OWW WMW P; Johnson v. Mallenman, CV F 96-5834 LJO P;

Johnson v. Heard, CV F 96-6118 REC DLB P.

3

in this Court pursuant to Section 1983,1 elected to file his case in the State Superior Court rather

than in Federal Court under Section 1983. The Complaint makes no reference to Section 1983

and clearly indicates that Plaintiff is seeking relief under the “California Tort Claims Act” for

monetary damages from Defendants wrongful confiscation of his personal property. However,

violation of state tort law is not sufficient to state a claim for relief under § 1983. Plaintiff does,

however, make reference to the U.S. Constitution. Thus, it is unclear from the face of the

Complaint if Plaintiff intended to base his claims on federal law in addition to state law. The

Court will address Plaintiff’s property allegations to the extent they fall under federal law. 

1. Section 1983 Requirements

The Civil Rights Act, under which Defendants allege this action was filed, provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between

the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See

Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a

constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates

in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that

causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th

Cir. 1978). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must link each named

defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiff’s

Case 1:06-cv-00049-OWW -GBC Document 6 Filed 01/24/06 Page 3 of 5
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

federal rights.

2. Eighth Amendment Claim

To constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, prison

conditions must involve “the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain.” Rhodes v. Chapman,

452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). The confiscation of personal property does not give rise to a claim for

relief for violation of the Eighth Amendment, regardless of the value of the property to the

inmate. 

3. Fourteenth Amendment Claim

The United States Supreme Court has held that “[a]n unauthorized intentional deprivation

of property . . . does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful post-deprivation remedy for the loss is

available.” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). Therefore, Plaintiff’s allegation that

Defendants unlawfully seized and destroyed his personal property does not give rise to a claim

for relief under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Complaint at 5.)

4. Illegal Seizure - Fourth Amendment

An inmate has no “reasonable expectation of privacy in his prison cell entitling him to the

protection of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Hudson v.

Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 536 (1984). Therefore, Plaintiff’s reference to an unreasonable seizure

does not give rise to a claim for relief under section 1983 for violation of the Fourth Amendment.

5. Claim for Mental and Emotional Distress

Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants have caused him to suffer “severe pain and suffering

and mental distress.” (Complaint at 9.) The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that “[n]o

Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in jail, prison, or other correctional

facility, for mental and emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of

physical injury.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). Plaintiff’s claim for damages for the mental and

emotional stress caused by the deprivation of his property is barred by section 1997e(e). Oliver

v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 627 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Case 1:06-cv-00049-OWW -GBC Document 6 Filed 01/24/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

D. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 

To the extent the Complaint alleges any federal claims, the Court finds that the facts in

the Complaint do not state a cognizable claim for relief under Section 1983. Accordingly, the

Court will RECOMMEND that the federal claims be DISMISSED from the action, that any

pending motions be DENIED as moot, and that the action be REMANDED back to the state

court for resolution of Plaintiff’s state law claims. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted

to the United States District Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States

District Court, Eastern District of California. Within FIFTEEN (15) days after being served with

a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written Objections with the

Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the Objections shall be served

and filed within TEN (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file Objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00049-OWW -GBC Document 6 Filed 01/24/06 Page 5 of 5