Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01598/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01598-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUSSELL TAFOYA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1598 GEB KJM P

vs.

ED PRIETO, et al., 

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915. This proceeding was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge in accordance with

Local Rule 72-302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The in forma pauperis statute permits federal district courts to

authorize the commencement, prosecution or

defense of 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). 

Case 2:07-cv-01598-GEB -KJM Document 8 Filed 12/06/07 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

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. Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113 (9th

Cir. 1998). In determining whether an action is frivolous, the court may “pierce the veil of the

complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly

baseless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). 

Plaintiff alleges that when he was taken to an outside hospital, he asked jail

officials if he could take his personal property, items purchased at the commissary, with him. 

They declined. When he returned to jail three days later, $261 worth of commissary items was

missing, yet defendants have neither reimbursed him nor replaced the missing property.

Neither the negligent nor intentional deprivation of property states a due process

claim under § 1983 if the deprivation was random and unauthorized. See Parratt v. Taylor, 451

U.S. 527, 535-44 (1981) (state employee negligently lost prisoner's hobby kit), overruled in part

on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31(1986); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S.

517, 533 (1984) (intentional destruction of inmate's property). The availability of an adequate

state post-deprivation remedy, e.g., a state tort action, precludes relief because it provides

sufficient procedural due process. See Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 128 (1990). California

law provides such an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813,

816-17 (9th Cir.1994) (citing Cal. Gov't Code §§ 810-895). Plaintiff’s complaint thus fails to

state a cognizable claim under the civil rights act.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis be denied and this action be dismissed.

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:07-cv-01598-GEB -KJM Document 8 Filed 12/06/07 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

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

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).

DATED: December 5, 2007. 

2

tafo1598.56

Case 2:07-cv-01598-GEB -KJM Document 8 Filed 12/06/07 Page 3 of 3