Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00312/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00312-1/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICARDO ZAMBRANO,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

B. VALDEZ, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:15-cv-00312-EPG-PC

 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE, WITH 

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE 

A CLAIM

 

ORDER THAT DISMISSAL IS SUBJECT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

ORDER FOR CLERK TO CLOSE CASE

(ECF No. 9)

I. BACKGROUND

Ricardo Zambrano (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On February 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed his initial complaint. (ECF No. 1.) On April 17, 

2015, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 7.) On February 25, 2016, 

Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck issued a screening order, which dismissed the first amended 

complaint for failure to state a claim and granted Plaintiff leave to amend. On March 25, 2016, 

Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which is before this Court for screening. (ECF No. 

9.)

On March 25, 2015, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and no other parties have made an appearance. (ECF No. 6.) 

Case 1:15-cv-00312-EPG Document 11 Filed 09/27/16 Page 1 of 5
2

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

Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of 

California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as 

reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3). 

II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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 Afrivolous 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). ANotwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been 

paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action or 

appeal fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.@ 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

A complaint is required to contain Aa 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 A[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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 

1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 

(2007)). While a plaintiff=s allegations are taken as true, courts Aare 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). Plaintiff must set forth Asufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to >state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.=@ Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678. While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

“[A] pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent 

standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 

(2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285 (1976)).

III. SUMMARY OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff alleges that on May 12, 2014, he packed his personal property. At that time, 

his TV was checked by Officer B. Valdez and did not have a hole in it. On June 6, 2014, A.V. 

Case 1:15-cv-00312-EPG Document 11 Filed 09/27/16 Page 2 of 5
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

Guerra, property officer of Corcoran Security Housing Unit, confiscated Plaintiff’s TV because 

it had a hold in it. 

Plaintiff explains that he “filed this claim with the Court because the Department never 

accept liability by my confiscation and damages of my personal property.” (Second Amended 

Complaint at 4, ECF No. 9.) 

Plaintiff names the following defendants: Bo Valdez, property officer at Kern Valley 

State Prison; A. V. Guerra, property officer of Corcoran Security Housing Unit at Corcoran 

State Prison; M. Seaman, inmate appeals office, Kern Valley State Prison; S. Tallerico, inmate 

appeals office, Kern Valley State Prison; C. Pfeiffer, Chief Deputy Warden, Kern Valley State 

Prison; G. Gregory, correctional sergeant, Kern Valley State Prison; F. P. Field, associate 

warden central operations, Kern Valley State Prison; R. A. Salazar, correctional sergeant, Kern 

Valley State Prison; R. Pimentel, appeals examiner captain, Sacramento; R. L. Briggs, Chief 

Office of Appeals, Sacramento.

IV. PLAINTIFF=S CLAIMS

A. Legal Standards

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, 

or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or 

causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person 

within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or 

immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party 

injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for 

redress . . . .

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

“[Section] 1983 ‘is not itself a source of substantive rights,’ but merely provides ‘a 

method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.’” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 

393-94 (1989) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979)); see also Chapman 

v. Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600, 618 (1979); Hall v. City of Los Angeles, 697 

F.3d 1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 2012); Crowley v. Nevada, 678 F.3d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 2012); 

Anderson v. Warner, 451 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Case 1:15-cv-00312-EPG Document 11 Filed 09/27/16 Page 3 of 5
4

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

The Due Process Clause protects prisoners from being deprived of property without due

process of law, Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974), and prisoners have a protected 

interest in their personal property, Hansen v. May, 502 F.2d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 1974).

Moreover, 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). 

California's tort claim process provides such a postdeprivation remedy. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 

F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (“[A] negligent or intentional deprivation of a 

prisoner's property fails to state a claim under section 1983 if the state has an adequate post 

deprivation remedy.”). 

B. Application to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint fails to state a constitutional claim against any 

defendant under the legal standards described above. Plaintiff does not allege that any 

defendant intentionally put a hole in his television. Indeed, he alleges in his complaint that the 

hole was due to correctional officers’ negligence. Negligence is unintentional and does not 

give rise to due process rights. Not to mention that Plaintiff does assert his claim against any 

specific correctional officer. It is possible from the description of events that Plaintiff’s 

television was damaged in transport due to negligent transportation along the way. This alone 

does not state a constitutional claim.

Furthermore, Plaintiff has (or had) a claim against the prison for negligent damage to 

his property under state law. Without a federal claim, the Court declines to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction as to such a claim. United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 

U.S. 715, 726 (1966) (“if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, . . . the state claims 

should be dismissed as well.”). But the Court notes that California does provide a remedy for 

destruction of property through the California Government Claims Board. This process has its 

Case 1:15-cv-00312-EPG Document 11 Filed 09/27/16 Page 4 of 5
5

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

own procedural requirements, including that such a claim be filed promptly before the 

Government Claims Board.1 

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court finds that Plaintiff Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) fails to state a 

cognizable claim against any defendant and should be dismissed.

The Court does not believe Plaintiff is entitled to additional leave to amend his 

complaint. The Court has already screened Plaintiff’s earlier complaint and found it did not 

state a claim. The Court provided legal guidance to assist Plaintiff in stating a claim. Plaintiff 

has now filed three complaints without stating a cognizable claim under the law.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A and 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e), this action is 

DISMISSED, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff=s failure to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted under § 1983;

2. This dismissal is subject to the Athree-strikes@ provision set forth in 28 

U.S.C. ' 1915(g). Silva v. Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th Cir. 2011); 

and,

3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 Before suing a public entity, the plaintiff must present a timely written claim for damages to the entity. Cal. 

Gov’t Code § 911.2; State of California v. Superior Court 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1239 (2004). Since 1988, such claims 

must be presented to the government entity no later than six months after the cause of action accrues. Cal. Gov’t 

Code § 911.2, as amended by Stats.1987, ch. 1208, § 3, p. 4306. Accrual of the cause of action for purposes of the 

government claims statute is the date of accrual that would pertain under the statute of limitations applicable to a 

dispute between private litigants. Cal. Gov’t Code § 901; Whitfield v. Roth 10 Cal.3d 874, 884–885 (1974). 

Case 1:15-cv-00312-EPG Document 11 Filed 09/27/16 Page 5 of 5