Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01264/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01264-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFERY E. WALKER, 

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY JAIL, 

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-1264 CRB (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a prisoner at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville, has

filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging unlawful deprivation of

property.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which

prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint

"is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

relief." Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, however. 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Case 3:08-cv-01264-CRB Document 5 Filed 03/14/08 Page 1 of 2
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

 1A prisoner is not 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. 1989).

2

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two

essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the

United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a

person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 US 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

A negligent or intentional deprivation of a state prisoner's property fails to

state a due process claim under § 1983 if the state has an adequate postdeprivation remedy. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). 

California Law provides such an adequate post-deprivation remedy for

deprivations of property. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir.

1994) (citing Cal. Gov't Code §§ 810-895). Plaintiff's allegations of unlawful

deprivation of property fail to state a claim cognizable under § 1983. See id. at

817.1

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED under the

authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)

The clerk shall enter judgment in favor of defendants and close the file.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 14, 2008 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.08\Walker, J4.dismiss.wpd

Case 3:08-cv-01264-CRB Document 5 Filed 03/14/08 Page 2 of 2