Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01456/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01456-1/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

REGINALD COLBERT,

Plaintiff,

v.

F. MARTINEZ, 

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01456-LJO-GSA PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER

SECTION 1983

(Doc. 1)

OBJECTION DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Findings and Recommendations Following Screening of Complaint

I. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff Reginald Colbert (“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 October

9, 2007. 

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 1:07-cv-01456-LJO-GSA Document 10 Filed 05/23/08 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

2

“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S.

506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

“Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. However, “the liberal pleading

standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330

n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements

of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257

(9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

II. Plaintiff’s Claim

The event at issue in this action allegedly occurred at Pleasant Valley State Prison, where

Plaintiff was housed at the time. Plaintiff alleges that on November 14, 2006, Defendant F.

Martinez, a correctional officer, took his hearing aids during a cell search for contraband. Plaintiff

seeks money damages arising out of the loss of the hearing aids.

To state a claim under section 1983, Plaintiff must allege that (1) Defendant acted under

color of state law and (2) Defendant deprived her of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). Although Plaintiff does not

specify the basis for his claim, it is the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which

protects prisoners from being deprived of property without due process of law. Wolff v. McDonnell,

418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). Prisoners have a protected interest in their personal property. Hansen v.

May, 502 F.2d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 1974). However, while an authorized, intentional deprivation of

property is actionable under the Due Process Clause, see Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532, n.13

(1984) (citing Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (1982)); Quick v. Jones, 754 F.2d

1521, 1524 (9th Cir. 1985), “[a]n unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state

employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause

of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available.”

Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). 

Case 1:07-cv-01456-LJO-GSA Document 10 Filed 05/23/08 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

3

Here, Plaintiff has remedies available to him under state law. For that reason, he may not

pursue a claim for relief under section 1983 based on the loss of his personal property. 

III. Conclusion and Recommendation

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under federal

law. Because the deficiency is not capable of being cured by amendment, the Court HEREBY

RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

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 22, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01456-LJO-GSA Document 10 Filed 05/23/08 Page 3 of 3