Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01708/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01708-1/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOANN MOUTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

C.C.W.F. STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01708 DLB PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH 

PREJUDICE

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

TERMINATE CASE

Plaintiff Joann Mouton (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on August 4, 

2014. The action was transferred to this Court on October 30, 2014. Plaintiff names Correctional 

Officer J. Aguilar and Sergeant Perez as Defendants. Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a 

magistrate judge on November 19, 2014.

A. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The Court is required to screen Plaintiff’s complaint and dismiss the case, in whole or in part, 

if the Court determines it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing 

that the pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

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

Case 1:14-cv-01708-DLB Document 12 Filed 09/09/15 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

conclusory statements, do not suffice,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) 

(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and courts “are 

not required to indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 

(9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual allegations are 

accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt 

resolved in their favor, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121-23 (9th Cir. 2012); Hebbe v. Pliler, 

627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), but Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible to survive 

screening, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each 

named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks 

omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that 

a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of 

satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 

F.3d at 969.

B. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the California Institution for Women in Corona, 

California. She was incarcerated at the Central California Women’s Facility in Chowchilla, 

California when the events at issue occurred. 

Plaintiff alleges as follows. On February 19, 2014, Plaintiff went out for a sexual assault. 

On returning to the facility, she went to the crisis center and then went to EOP. On February 20, 

2014, Defendant Gomez and correctional officer Magdellanio packed and sent all of her property. 

Defendant Aguilar in the property department then lost all of the property due to his negligence in 

logging the two boxes. Plaintiff tried to resolve the issue but Defendant Aguilar stated he didn’t care 

and to buy more. Defendant Perez laughed and didn’t care about the matter.

Plaintiff requests compensation in the amount of $1,500.00.

C. DISCUSSION

1. Due Process - Property

Section 1983 claims must be premised on the violation of the Constitution or other federal 

Case 1:14-cv-01708-DLB Document 12 Filed 09/09/15 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

rights. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2009). The Due Process Clause of the 

Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects prisoners from being deprived of 

property without due process of law, Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2974 

(1974), and prisoners have a protected interest in their personal property, Hansen v. May, 502 F.2d 

728, 730 (9th Cir. 1974). 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). However, the Due Process 

Clause is not violated by a random, unauthorized deprivation of property if the state provides an 

adequate post-deprivation remedy. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 3204 

(1984); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994). Here, Plaintiff alleges that 

Defendants negligently lost her property. Thus, Plaintiff’s loss of property was unauthorized. 

Plaintiff has an adequate post-deprivation remedy under California law and therefore, her attempt to 

pursue a claim under federal law for the loss of her property fails as a matter of law. Barnett, 31 

F.3d at 816-17 (citing Cal. Gov’t Code §§810-895).

D. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 

1983. Since Plaintiff’s claim fails as a matter of law and any amendment would be futile, the 

Complaint must be dismissed without leave to amend. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim; and

2. The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to terminate the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01708-DLB Document 12 Filed 09/09/15 Page 3 of 3