Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02410/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02410-0/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

Mario Hatri Wooten, 

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 02-2410 DFL PAN P 

vs. Findings and Recommendations

Sacramento Police Department

et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff, a state prisoner without counsel, seeks to

commence a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He

has submitted an affidavit requesting leave to proceed in forma

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). This proceeding was

referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). 

The in forma pauperis statute permits federal district

courts to, 

authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of 

Case 2:02-cv-02410-DFL-PAN Document 11 Filed 06/03/05 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

2

any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal . . .

without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a 

person who submits an affidavit that includes a

statement of all assets such prisoner possesses that

the person is unable to pay such fees or give security

therefor. Such affidavit shall state the nature of the

action . . . and affiant’s belief that the person is

entitled to redress.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). A court may deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis if it appears from the face of the proposed

complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit. Minetti

v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 1998). A claim is

frivolous or without merit if there is no legal theory upon which

the plaintiff could prevail. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

329 (1989) (federal court may dismiss sua sponte “claims of

infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist).

Plaintiff seeks to proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and so he must

allege an individual deprived him of a right secured to him by

the Constitution or laws of the United States while acting under

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988).

 Plaintiff alleges police seized his cell phone and case

during an arrest and have not returned them. Plaintiff does not

challenge the legality of the stop or ensuing search during which

the phone was seized. Plaintiff seeks the return of his phone

and case and damages for mental anguish resulting from the

“theft.” 

A state employee’s unauthorized intentional deprivation of

property does not constitute a violation of the procedural

requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Case 2:02-cv-02410-DFL-PAN Document 11 Filed 06/03/05 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

3

Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is

available. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); see also

Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.1994) ("[N]egligent

or intentional deprivation of a prisoner's property fails to

state a claim under section 1983 if the state has an adequate

post deprivation remedy."). Plaintiff has an adequate postdeprivation remedy in the state courts. See Minsky v. City of

Los Angeles, 113 Cal.Rptr. 102, 109 (Cal. 1974) (“[T]he

government in effect occupies the position of a bailee when it

seizes from an arrestee property that is not shown to be

contraband.”). 

The allegations implicate no federal right and so plaintiff

fails to claim infringement of an interest cognizable under 

§ 1983.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis should be denied and this case should be closed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to this case. Written

objections may be filed within 20 days of service of these

findings and recommendations. The document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 

The district judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings

and recommendations in whole or in part. 

Dated: June 2, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:02-cv-02410-DFL-PAN Document 11 Filed 06/03/05 Page 3 of 3