Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03439/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03439-1/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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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. Plaintiff has 

paid the filing fee. His complaint is now before the Court for 

initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

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); 

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

Case 3:16-cv-03439-TEH Document 7 Filed 07/21/16 Page 1 of 4
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 Californi

a

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. 

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). 

It is difficult to discern the exact nature of Plaintiff’s 

allegations. He states that correctional officers confiscated 

his headphones and perhaps his television. He also describes 

improper medical care from 1993 to 2000 at California Medical 

Facility in Vacaville and at U.C. Davis Hospital. He also states 

Case 3:16-cv-03439-TEH Document 7 Filed 07/21/16 Page 2 of 4
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 Californi

a

that computers are disrupting his bodily functions. 

Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim; therefore the 

complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. With respect to the 

deprivation of property, Plaintiff must address the postdeprivation remedy provided by the state. Plaintiff’s medical 

claims appear time barred and occurred in the Eastern District of 

California. Plaintiff’s remaining allegations are frivolous. If 

Plaintiff files an amended complaint he must identify the 

specific defendants and describe how they violated his 

constitutional rights. 

III 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders as 

follows: 

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

FIRST 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 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on 

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

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

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

proper First Amended Complaint within twenty-eight days of this 

order will result in the dismissal of this action. 

Case 3:16-cv-03439-TEH Document 7 Filed 07/21/16 Page 3 of 4
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 Californi

a

2. Plaintiff is advised that the First Amended Complaint 

will supersede the original Complaint and all other pleadings. 

Claims and defendants not included in the First 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: 7/21/2016 

________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

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

Case 3:16-cv-03439-TEH Document 7 Filed 07/21/16 Page 4 of 4