Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01518/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01518-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE ARLIS VALENZUELA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1518 GEB EFB P

vs.

J. NICK, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel suing for alleged civil rights violations. See

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Plaintiff has filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. His declaration

makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), plaintiff must pay the $350 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1914(a). Plaintiff must make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income

credited to his trust account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The agency having custody of plaintiff

shall forward payments from plaintiff’s account to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount

in the account exceeds $10 until the filing fee is paid. 

////

Case 2:07-cv-01518-GEB-EFB Document 6 Filed 04/09/08 Page 1 of 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

2

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and, for the

reasons explained below, finds it does not state a cognizable claim against any defendant. To 

proceed, plaintiff must file an amended complaint.

Plaintiff’s claims relate to confiscated property. Specifically, he alleges:

C/O J. Nick searched my cell on 4/4/05 and confiscated items of my personal

property including priceless antique photos of my great grand parents children

and other family, legal documents I was filing, my bible and other books

including a antique bible that belonged to my great great grandparents containing

our family history of birth & death records, a lot of canteen and personal hygeine

[sic] products. He did this deliberately and maliciously and lied about it. He took

my property receipts and stole receipts so I could not show I had these items. The

warden did nothing. James Tilton did the directors [sic] level review and refused

to act or do anything to correct this and he is also responsible for this act.

Compl., at 3. He claims that defendant Nick intended as a “retaliatory act for some appeal or

compliant I had previously filed.” Compl., at 4. Finally, plaintiff alleges that defendant Tilton is

aware of a pattern of such conduct and refuses to take any corrective action. Compl., at 5. To

state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must allege an identified defendant deprived

plaintiff of a right secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States while acting

under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988). To state a claim for

retaliation, plaintiff must allege that on a specified date an individual state actor took adverse

action against plaintiff for his engagement in a constitutionally protected activity and the adverse

action chilled plaintiff’s exercise of his rights and did not reasonably advance a legitimate

penological goal. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005); Rizzo v. Dawson,

778 F.2d 527, 531-32 (9th Cir. 1985). Moreover, plaintiff has no Fourth Amendment right to

freedom from a search of his cell, even though it may have been unreasonable. Hudson v.

Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 525-26 (1984). An unauthorized taking of property does not violate the

due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when, as here, state law provides an adequate

post deprivation remedy. Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533; Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813 (9th Cir.

1994) (holding that Cal. Gov’t Code § 810 provides such a remedy).

////

Case 2:07-cv-01518-GEB-EFB Document 6 Filed 04/09/08 Page 2 of 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

3

Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim under either of these theories.

Any amended complaint must show that the federal court has jurisdiction and that

plaintiff’s action is brought in the right place, that plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s

allegations are true, and must contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a

defendant only persons who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of

a federal constitutional right. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person

subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in

another’s act or omits to perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged

deprivation). If plaintiff contends he was the victim of a conspiracy, he must identify the

participants and allege their agreement to deprive him of a specific federal constitutional right. 

In an amended complaint, the allegations must be set forth in numbered paragraphs. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate transactions or

occurrences, the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).

The federal rules contemplate brevity. See Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d

1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “nearly all of the circuits have now disapproved any

heightened pleading standard in cases other than those governed by Rule 9(b).”); Fed. R. Civ. P.

84; cf. Rule 9(b) (setting forth rare exceptions to simplified pleading). Plaintiff’s claims must be

set forth in short and plain terms, simply, concisely and directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema

N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system,

which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiff

must not include any preambles, introductions, argument, speeches, explanations, stories,

griping, vouching, evidence, attempts to negate possible defenses, summaries, and the like. 

McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of § 1983 complaint

for violation of Rule 8 after warning); see Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 597 (1998)

(reiterating that “firm application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is fully warranted” in

Case 2:07-cv-01518-GEB-EFB Document 6 Filed 04/09/08 Page 3 of 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

4

prisoner cases). The court (and defendant) should be able to read and understand plaintiff’s

pleading within minutes. McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177. A long, rambling pleading, including

many defendants with unexplained, tenuous or implausible connection to the alleged

constitutional injury or joining a series of unrelated claims against many defendants very likely

will result in delaying the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and an order dismissing

plaintiff’s action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 for violation of these instructions. 

A district court must construe pro se pleading “liberally” to determine if it states a claim

and, prior to dismissal, tell a plaintiff of deficiencies in his complaint and give plaintiff an

opportunity to cure them. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000). However,

the “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on

the assumption that all the allegations in the compliant are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Bell

Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, U.S. , 127 S.Ct. 1995, 1965 (2007) (citations omitted). 

An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior

pleading. Local Rule 15-220; see Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff

files an amended complaint, the original pleading is superseded.

Plaintiff is admonished that by signing an amended complaint he certifies he has made

reasonable inquiry and has evidentiary support for his allegations and that for violation of this

rule the court may impose sanctions sufficient to deter repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 11. Prison rules require plaintiff to obey all laws, including this one, and plaintiff may

be punished by prison authorities for violation of the court’s rules and orders. See Cal. Code

Regs. tit. 15, § 3005.

A prisoner may bring no § 1983 action until he has exhausted such administrative

remedies as are available to him. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The requirement is mandatory. Booth

v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). Plaintiff is further admonished that by signing an

amended complaint he certifies his claims are warranted by existing law, including the law that

he exhaust administrative remedies, and that for violation of this rule plaintiff risks dismissal of

Case 2:07-cv-01518-GEB-EFB Document 6 Filed 04/09/08 Page 4 of 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

5

his action.

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in

accordance with the notice to the Director of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 

3. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days. Plaintiff shall file an

original and one copy of the amended complaint, which must bear the docket number assigned to

this case and be titled “First Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an amended complaint will

result in a recommendation this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim. If plaintiff files

an amended complaint stating a cognizable claim the court will proceed with service of process

by the United States Marshal. 

Dated: April 8, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01518-GEB-EFB Document 6 Filed 04/09/08 Page 5 of 5