Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-06145/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-06145-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

OAKLAND DIVISION

MANUEL L. BODY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

M PHILLIPS, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 12-6145 PJH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis. 

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).

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).

///

Case 4:12-cv-06145-PJH Document 5 Filed 01/04/13 Page 1 of 2
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

B. Legal Claims

Plaintiff contends that the defendant correctional officer lost his flat-screen television

when his property was stored.

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

claim under § 1983 if the deprivation was random and unauthorized. 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 adequate procedural due process. King v. Massarweh, 782 F.2d

825, 826 (9th Cir. 1986). California law provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for

any property deprivations. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing

Cal. Gov't Code §§ 810-895). Nor is a prisoner protected by the Fourth Amendment

against the seizure, destruction or conversion of his property. Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F.2d

803, 806 (9th Cir. 1989).

Plaintiff's allegations involve a random and unauthorized deprivation of property not

cognizable under section 1983, so must be dismissed. Moreover, plaintiff has brought this

exact same claim on several other occasions: No. C 11-4702 PJH (PR), No. C 11-5734

PJH (PR) and No. C 12-2871 PJH (PR). In each case plaintiff was informed why his

complaint failed to state a claim and the cases were dismissed with prejudice. It is not

clear why plaintiff continues to file the same frivolous action.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out above, the complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice as

frivolous and for failure to state a claim The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2013. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.12\Body6145.dsm.wpd

Case 4:12-cv-06145-PJH Document 5 Filed 01/04/13 Page 2 of 2