Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01676/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01676-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACKIE M. JOHNSON, No. 2:15-cv-1676-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

CHANAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a former prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and no other party has been served or appeared in the action. Pending

before the court is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1). Plaintiff has also filed a request for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2).

Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing that

plaintiff is unable to prepay fees and costs or give security therefor. The request to proceed in

forma pauperis will, therefore, be granted. 

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

1

Case 2:15-cv-01676-KJM-CMK Document 5 Filed 05/11/16 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

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover,

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “short and plain statement

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This means

that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172,

1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the

complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it

rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must allege

with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the

claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is

impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague

and conclusory. 

I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff’s complaint is difficult to decipher. However, based on the allegations in

the complaint, and those in the inmate grievances attached thereto, it appears that plaintiff’s

personal property went missing when he was transferred to, or within, administrative segregation. 

He is requesting reimbursement for the property and compensation. 

II. DISCUSSION

Where a prisoner alleges the deprivation of a liberty or property interest caused by

the unauthorized action of a prison official, there is no claim cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

if the state provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113,

129-32 (1990); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). A state’s post-deprivation remedy

may be adequate even though it does not provide relief identical to that available under § 1983. 

See Hudson, 468 U.S. at 531 n.11. An available state common law tort claim procedure to

recover the value of property is an adequate remedy. See Zinermon, 494 U.S. at 128-29. The

2

Case 2:15-cv-01676-KJM-CMK Document 5 Filed 05/11/16 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

Ninth Circuit has concluded that “California law provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy

for any property deprivations.” Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Cal. Gov’t

Code §§ 810-895). Thus, in California, the negligent or intentional depravation of a prisoner’s

property fails to state a due process claim under§ 1983. See id.

As plaintiff’s only claim in this action relates to the depravation of his personal

property, he cannot state a claim for which relief can be granted. 

III. CONCLUSION

Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be

cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of

the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

Plaintiff will therefore be required to show cause in writing, within 30 days of the date of this

order, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff is warned that

failure to respond to this order may result in dismissal of the action for the reasons outlined

above, as well as for failure to prosecute and comply with court rules and orders. See Local Rule

110. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is

granted; and 

2. Plaintiff shall show cause in writing, within 30 days of the date of this

order, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 11, 2016

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:15-cv-01676-KJM-CMK Document 5 Filed 05/11/16 Page 3 of 3