Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-01739/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-01739-0/pdf.json

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

---

Case No. 16-cv-01739 NC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY LAMONT BUNN, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

PELICAN BAY STATE PRISON,

 Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-01739 NC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint, 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

1

 Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons that follow, the court dismisses the complaint 

with leave to amend.

BACKGROUND

I. Standard of Review

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a 

prisoner seeks 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 

 

1

Petitioner has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 5.)

Case 5:16-cv-01739-NC Document 8 Filed 06/15/16 Page 1 of 6
Case No. 16-cv-01739 NC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

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

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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally 

construed. See 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 elements: (1) 

that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) 

that the violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West 

v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

II. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff claims that while at Pelican Bay State Prison, plaintiff was told that he 

could not have his compact disc player and other unspecified property. Plaintiff was asked 

what he would like to do with that property, and plaintiff requested that it be held for him. 

Instead, it appears that plaintiff’s property was donated against his wishes. Liberally 

construed, plaintiff appears to be attempting to allege a due process claim.

However, plaintiff only names Pelican Bay State Prison as the sole defendant. The 

Eleventh Amendment bars from the federal courts suits against a state by its own citizens, 

citizens of another state or citizens or subjects of any foreign state. See Atascadero State 

Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 237-38 (1985). This Eleventh Amendment immunity also 

extends to a state agency, such as Pelican Bay State Prison. See, e.g., Allison v. Cal. Adult 

Authority, 419 F.2d 822, 823 (9th Cir. 1969) (noting that California Adult Authority and 

Case 5:16-cv-01739-NC Document 8 Filed 06/15/16 Page 2 of 6
Case No. 16-cv-01739 NC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

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

San Quentin Prison are not persons within meaning of Civil Rights Act). Thus, Pelican 

Bay State Prison is immune from suit, and is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff will be 

given leave to amend to name a proper defendant.

Plaintiff is advised that liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the plaintiff can show that the defendant’s actions both actually and 

proximately caused the deprivation of a federally protected right. See Lemire v. Cal. Dept. 

of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d 1062, 1085 (9th Cir. 2013); Leer v. Murphy, 844

F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). A person deprives another of a constitutional right within 

the meaning of section 1983 if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's 

affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do, that causes the 

deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. See Leer, 844 F.2d at 633. Plaintiff must 

“set forth specific facts as to each individual defendant’s” actions which violated his or her 

rights. Id. at 634. Even at the pleading stage, “[a] plaintiff must allege facts, not simply 

conclusions, that show that an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his 

civil rights.” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998).

It is also unclear whether plaintiff’s deprivation of property was random and 

unauthorized, or whether it occurred by an established state procedure. If it was the 

former, the availability of an adequate state post-deprivation remedy, e.g., a state tort 

action, precludes relief because it provides sufficient procedural due process. See 

Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 128 (1990) (where state cannot foresee, and therefore 

Case 5:16-cv-01739-NC Document 8 Filed 06/15/16 Page 3 of 6
Case No. 16-cv-01739 NC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

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

provide meaningful hearing prior to, deprivation statutory provision for post-deprivation 

hearing or common law tort remedy for erroneous deprivation satisfies due process). 

California law provides such an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Barnett v. 

Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 810-895). If it 

was the latter, plaintiff may have a cognizable claim because due process is violated where 

a deprivation is predictable and pre-deprivation process possible, but state officials, acting 

under apparent authority of state procedures, provide no pre-deprivation procedure and are 

specifically charged with the authority to effect the deprivation complained of. See 

Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 739 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that a due 

process challenge to the deprivation of property may go forward where (1) the deprivation 

took place at a specific, predictable point in the seizure process; (2) the seizing officer was 

delegated the power and authority to effect the very deprivation complained of; and (3) he 

also had the concomitant duty to initiate the procedural safeguards set up under the local 

ordinance). 

As the complaint currently reads, plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim against 

any defendant. However, district courts must afford pro se prisoner litigants an 

opportunity to amend to correct any deficiency in their complaints. See Lopez v. Smith, 

203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). If plaintiff believes that he can cure the 

deficiencies addressed above, he may amend his complaint to do so.

Case 5:16-cv-01739-NC Document 8 Filed 06/15/16 Page 4 of 6
Case No. 16-cv-01739 NC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

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

CONCLUSION

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. If plaintiff believes he 

can cure the above-mentioned deficiencies in good faith, he must file an amended 

complaint within twenty-eight days from the date this order is filed. The amended 

complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (C 16-1739

NC (PR)) and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Failure to file an 

amended complaint within twenty-eight days and in accordance with this order may result 

in the dismissal of this case. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a blank 

civil rights form along with his copy of this order. 

2. Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original 

complaint. “[A] plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint 

which are not alleged in the amended complaint.” London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 

F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981). 

3. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. 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).

Case 5:16-cv-01739-NC Document 8 Filed 06/15/16 Page 5 of 6
Case No. 16-cv-01739 NC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

6

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-01739-NC Document 8 Filed 06/15/16 Page 6 of 6