Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00921/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00921-6/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONNIE KAY SNEED,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. PEERY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-0921 WBS CKD P

ORDER AND 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se. On October 6, 2015, the court 

recommended that this action be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint as 

required by this court’s August 21, 2015 order. Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint. 

Good cause appearing, the October 6, 2015 findings and recommendations will be vacated. 

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). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

Case 2:15-cv-00921-WBS-CKD Document 24 Filed 11/10/15 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

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 

“naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 

of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 

upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 

the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007), 

and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 

U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges, as he did in his original complaint, that 

correctional officers either stole or destroyed his personal property. As plaintiff was informed 

when his original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, the United States Supreme Court 

has held that an unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does not 

generally constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). Plaintiff fails to point to anything suggesting 

deviation from that general rule is warranted here. Because plaintiff fails to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted with respect to his allegations of intentional and unauthorized 

deprivation of personal property, or in any other respect, plaintiff’s amended complaint should be 

dismissed. Because granting leave to amend a second time appears futile, this case should be 

closed. 

/////

Case 2:15-cv-00921-WBS-CKD Document 24 Filed 11/10/15 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

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the court’s October 6, 

2015 findings and recommendations are vacated.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted; and 

2. This case be closed.

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 fourteen 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: November 10, 2015

1

snee0921.dis

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00921-WBS-CKD Document 24 Filed 11/10/15 Page 3 of 3