Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01664/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01664-1/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

HOWARD SCOTT,

Plaintiff, No. 2: 10-cv-1664 WBS KJN P

vs.

C/O SANCHES, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)

and Local Rule 302.

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing

fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court

will direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s prison

trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated to

Case 2:10-cv-01664-WBS-KJN Document 12 Filed 08/13/10 Page 1 of 8
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

make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to

plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to

the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing

fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

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 when it is based on an

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.

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47

(1957)). In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more

than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual

allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. However,

“[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the defendant fair

notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551

Case 2:10-cv-01664-WBS-KJN Document 12 Filed 08/13/10 Page 2 of 8
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

U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. at 555) (citations and internal

quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept

as true the allegations of the complaint in question, id., and construe the pleading in the light

most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

On February 16, 2010, plaintiff filed the original complaint. On March 24, 2010,

plaintiff filed the amended complaint. Accordingly, the undersigned will screen the amended

complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). 

Named as defendants are Correctional Officers Sanches, Kelso and McDonald. 

The gravamen of this action is plaintiff’s claim that defendant Sanches confiscated plaintiff’s

personal property, which was subsequently lost. 

The United States Supreme Court has held that “an 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). 

Thus, where the state provides a meaningful postdeprivation remedy, only authorized, intentional

deprivations constitute actionable violations of the Due Process Clause. An authorized

deprivation is one carried out pursuant to established state procedures, regulations, or statutes. 

Piatt v. McDougall, 773 F.2d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Knudson v. City of

Ellensburg, 832 F.2d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 1987).

In the instant case, plaintiff has not alleged any facts which suggest that the

deprivation was authorized. Rather, plaintiff suggests that his property was lost due to

mishandling by defendant Sanches. The California Legislature has provided a remedy for tort

claims against public officials in the California Government Code, §§ 900, et seq. Because

plaintiff has not attempted to seek redress in the state system, he cannot sue in federal court on

the claim that the state deprived him of property without due process of the law. The court

Case 2:10-cv-01664-WBS-KJN Document 12 Filed 08/13/10 Page 3 of 8
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

4

concludes that this claim must, therefore, be dismissed as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

Attached to plaintiff’s amended complaint is a copy of the Director’s Level

Decision denying plaintiff’s third level appeal. According to this decision, plaintiff’s property

was confiscated by defendant Sanches when plaintiff was placed in the Behavior Management

Unit. When he inventoried the property, defendant Sanches determined that most of it was nonallowable. The property was then donated. Plaintiff claimed that he had an electric razor in his

property, but prison officials determined that this claim was false as plaintiff’s property inventory

did not include a razor when he arrived at High Desert State Prison. The facts, as summarized in

the Director’s Level Decision, suggest that the deprivation of plaintiff’s property was authorized. 

As stated above, an authorized, intentional deprivation of property is actionable

under the Due Process Clause. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532 n. 13 (1984) (citing Logan

v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (1982)). “‘Ordinarily, due process of law requires

[notice and] an opportunity for some kind of hearing prior to the deprivation of a ... property

interest.’” Halverson v. Skagit County, 42 F.3d 1257, 1260 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal quotations

and citations omitted). “However, when the action complained of is legislative in nature, due

process is satisfied when the legislative body performs its responsibilities in the normal manner

prescribed by law.” Id. “[G]overnmental decisions which affect large areas and are not directed

at one or a few individuals do not give rise to the constitutional due process requirements of

individual notice and hearing; general notice as provided is sufficient.” Id. at 1260-61.

California Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3191 provides that an inmate shall select one of

the methods provided therein for disposing of personal property which is unauthorized pursuant

to subsection (b) and sections 3006 and 3190. According to the Director’s Level Decision,

plaintiff refused to sign a receipt for his confiscated property. 

Assuming the deprivation was authorized and intentional, plaintiff does not allege

what due process he was entitled to that he did not receive. For this reason, the undersigned does

Case 2:10-cv-01664-WBS-KJN Document 12 Filed 08/13/10 Page 4 of 8
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

 The Director’s Level Decision also states that plaintiff has a history of claiming lost

1

property in order to be compensated. 

5

not find that plaintiff has stated a colorable due process claim based on an intentional and

authorized deprivation of his property.1

For the reasons discussed above, plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed with

leave to amend. If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the

conditions about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 

Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms

how each named defendant is involved. Id. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the

claimed deprivation. Id.; May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy,

588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official

participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266,

268 (9th Cir. 1982).

In addition, plaintiff is hereby informed that the court cannot refer to a prior

pleading in order to make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that

an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This

requirement exists because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original

complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended

complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an

amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each

defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 

Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme

Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent

prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In

Case 2:10-cv-01664-WBS-KJN Document 12 Filed 08/13/10 Page 5 of 8
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

6

certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court

does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Therefore, plaintiff’s request for the

appointment of counsel is denied.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 11) is granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 

Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the

Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently

herewith.

3. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed. 

4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and

b. An original and one copy of the Second Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights

Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The second amended

complaint must also bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Second

Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order may

result in the dismissal of this action.

////

////

////

Case 2:10-cv-01664-WBS-KJN Document 12 Filed 08/13/10 Page 6 of 8
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

7

5. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (Dkt. No. 10) is denied.

DATED: August 12, 2010

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

sc1664.14

Case 2:10-cv-01664-WBS-KJN Document 12 Filed 08/13/10 Page 7 of 8
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

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOWARD SCOTT,

Plaintiff, No. 2: 10-cv-1664 WBS KJN P

vs.

C/P SANCHES, et al., NOTICE OF AMENDMENT

Defendants.

____________________________________/

Plaintiff hereby submits the following document in compliance with the court's

order filed :

______________ Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:10-cv-01664-WBS-KJN Document 12 Filed 08/13/10 Page 8 of 8