Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_15-cv-02916/USCOURTS-cand-1_15-cv-02916-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

ANDREW GEORGE PIAZZA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KEVIN CHAPPELL, et. al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 15-2916 NJV (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §

1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 6.)

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). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary;

the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations

omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual

Case 1:15-cv-02916-NJV Document 7 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] to relief'

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief

above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)

(citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has recently explained

the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the

framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are

well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine

whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,

679 (2009). 

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 deprivation was committed by a person acting under the

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

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff states that his confiscated property has not been returned.

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) (where state cannot foresee, and therefore provide

meaningful hearing prior to, deprivation statutory provision for post-deprivation hearing or

common law tort remedy for erroneous deprivation satisfies due process); King v.

Case 1:15-cv-02916-NJV Document 7 Filed 08/06/15 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Massarweh, 782 F.2d 825, 826 (9th Cir. 1986) (same). 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).

If the deprivation is not random and unauthorized, but the result of "established state

procedure," the availability of a post-termination tort action does not necessarily provide

due process. See Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 435-37 (1982) (failure on

part of state commission to hold hearing within statutory time limits not permitted to

terminate timely filed claim). Parratt does not apply where the state has procedures

designed to control the actions of state officials and the officials act pursuant to those

procedures. See Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 738 (9th Cir. 2001);

Armendariz v. Penman, 31 F.3d 860, 866 (9th Cir. 1994), aff'd in part on relevant grounds

and vacated in part on other grounds on reh'g en banc, 75 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1996) (en

banc). In those instances, the Fourteenth Amendment requires "'an opportunity . . .

granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner,'. . . for a hearing appropriate to

the nature of the case.'" Logan, 455 U.S. at 437. Due process is violated where a

deprivation is predictable and pre-deprivation process possible, but state officials, acting

under apparent authority of state procedures, provide no pre-deprivation procedure and are

specifically charged with the authority to effect the deprivation complained of. See

Zimmerman, 255 F.3d at 739 (holding that a due process challenge to the deprivation of

property may go forward where (1) the deprivation took place at a specific, predictable point

in the seizure process; (2) the seizing officer was delegated the power and authority to

effect the very deprivation complained of; and (3) he also had the concomitant duty to

initiate the procedural safeguards set up under the local ordinance); Armendariz, 31 F.3d at

866.

Plaintiff states that he received a rules violation while at San Quentin State Prison

and was assessed a 180 days loss of privileges. He was later given an additional 90 days

of loss of priveleges which was confirmed when he appeared in front of a Classification

Case 1:15-cv-02916-NJV Document 7 Filed 08/06/15 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Committee. As a result of the loss of privileges, plaintiff was moved to a new housing area

and his recreational and entertainment appliances were confiscated and he was given a

property receipt and told the property would be returned when the loss of privileges ended. 

The items were twenty-four single compact discs, two double compact discs, and two hot

pots. Prior to the loss of privileges punishment ending, plaintiff was transferred to a

different prison, but these items have still not arrived at the new prison. Plaintiff states that

had he been informed in advance of the transfer he would have inquired about transferring

the property. His exhibits indicate that his other property was transferred to the new prison,

just not the confiscated property. Petition, Ex. A.

It is unclear what has happened to the compact discs and hot pots at issue. If the

property was lost or destroyed due to a negligent or intentional act arising out of plaintiff’s

transfer, then he is not entitled to relief in this action because of the existence of an

adequate state post-deprivation remedy. This would appear to be the situation as his other

property arrived at the new prison. It does not appear that the permanent deprivation of the

confiscated property was envisioned as part of the rules violation punishment. Plaintiff

notes that the property would have been returned had he not been transferred. Plaintiff’s

claim appears to fall into the Parratt line of cases.

 Plaintiff has not provided sufficient allegations to demonstrate that the deprivation of

property was the result of an established state procedure to fall into the Zimmerman line of

cases. Moreover, to the extent that the property was confiscated as a result of the

established procedure of the rules violation hearing and punishment, then plaintiff appears

to have had an opportunity for a hearing both at the rules violation hearing and

Classification Committee hearing and he was able to file inmate appeals to address the

situation. Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to amend. 

In addition, the defendants named in the complaint are the correctional officers who

confiscated the property and placed it in the secure property room and a supervising

lieutenant. Plaintiff must demonstrate that they are the proper defendants and that they

Case 1:15-cv-02916-NJV Document 7 Filed 08/06/15 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

should have been aware that he was being transferred. The complaint will be dismissed

with leave to amend to provide more information regarding the proper defendants and to

provide additional details regarding the confiscation of the property as discussed above.

CONCLUSION

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the

standards set forth above. The amended complaint must be filed within twenty-eight (28)

days of the date this order is filed and must include the caption and civil case number used

in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an

amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all

the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.

1992). He may not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to

amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of this action.

2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed

“Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion. 

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2015. 

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:15-cv-02916-NJV Document 7 Filed 08/06/15 Page 5 of 5