Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03439/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03439-2/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD STEVENS LIBERATORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-3439-TEH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND

Plaintiff, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed this 

pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The original 

complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and Plaintiff has 

submitted a letter (Docket No. 9) that the Court has construed as 

an amended complaint. 

I

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). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss 

the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint 

“is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a 

defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

Pleadings filed by pro se litigants, however, must be liberally 

construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); 

Case 3:16-cv-03439-TEH Document 10 Filed 09/06/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 

1990).

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 violation was committed by a person acting under 

the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

II

Plaintiff presents various allegations regarding his time in 

prison including the confiscation of property and improper 

medical care.

Neither the alleged 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 postdeprivation 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).

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates 

the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual 

punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); McGuckin 

Case 3:16-cv-03439-TEH Document 10 Filed 09/06/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other 

grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 

(9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). A determination of "deliberate 

indifference" involves an examination of two elements: the 

seriousness of the prisoner's medical need and the nature of the 

defendant's response to that need. Id. at 1059. 

A "serious" medical need exists if the failure to treat a 

prisoner's condition could result in further significant injury 

or the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." Id. The 

existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would 

find important and worthy of comment or treatment; the presence 

of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual's 

daily activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial 

pain are examples of indications that a prisoner has a "serious" 

need for medical treatment. Id. at 1059-60. 

A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he or she 

knows that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm 

and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to 

abate it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The 

prison official must not only “be aware of facts from which the 

inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm 

exists,” but he “must also draw the inference.” Id. If a prison 

official should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then 

the official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how 

severe the risk. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 

(9th Cir. 2002). “A difference of opinion between a prisonerpatient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does 

not give rise to a § 1983 claim.” Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 

Case 3:16-cv-03439-TEH Document 10 Filed 09/06/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981). 

The original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend 

because it was difficult to discern the exact nature of 

Plaintiff’s allegations. The allegations of the amended 

complaint are similarly confusing.

Plaintiff states that a state official talks to him through 

his computer and stopped his television earphones from working. 

He also describes several medical problems, but the allegations 

are vague and many of them occurred from 1993 to 1997 which are 

time barred. The complaint will be dismissed and Plaintiff will 

be provided one final opportunity to present his claims, identify 

specific defendants and describe how they violated his 

constitutional rights. With regard to his medical claims he must 

describe how Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his 

serious medical needs.

III

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders as 

follows:

1. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO FILE A 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, within twenty-eight days containing all 

related claims against all Defendants that Plaintiff wishes to 

proceed against in this action. The pleading must be simple, 

concise and direct and must state clearly and succinctly how each 

and every Defendant is alleged to have violated Plaintiff’s 

federally-protected rights. See Leer, 844 F.2d at 634. The 

pleading must include the caption and civil case number used in 

this order and the words COURT ORDERED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

on the first page. Plaintiff is advised that he must file all of 

Case 3:16-cv-03439-TEH Document 10 Filed 09/06/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

his claims in one complaint and not present them piecemeal to the 

Court in various letters and other documents. Failure to file a 

proper Second Amended Complaint within twenty-eight days of this 

order will result in the dismissal of this action.

2. Plaintiff is advised that the Second Amended Complaint 

will supersede the original Complaint and all other pleadings. 

Claims and defendants not included in the Second Amended 

Complaint will not be considered by the Court. See Lacey v. 

Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) ("For 

claims dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, we 

will not require that they be repled in a subsequent amended 

complaint to preserve them for appeal. But for any claims 

voluntarily dismissed, we will consider those claims to be waived 

if not repled.").

3. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this 

action. Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of 

address by filing a separate paper with the Clerk headed “Notice 

of Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in 

a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal 

of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 9/6/2016

________________________

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.16\Liberatore3439.dwlta2.docx

Case 3:16-cv-03439-TEH Document 10 Filed 09/06/16 Page 5 of 5