Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00810/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00810-0/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRUCE SENATOR, Civil No. 13cv0810 AJB (DHB)

Plaintiff, ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

[ECF No. 2]; 

AND

(2) SUA SPONTE DISMISSING

COMPLAINT AND FRIVOLOUS AND

FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

vs.

JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,

Defendants.

Bruce Senator (“Plaintiff”), a former state inmate, and proceeding pro se, has filed this

civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has not prepaid the $350 filing fee mandated

by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”)

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [ECF No. 2]. 

I.

MOTION TO PROCEED IFP

All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United

States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28

U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee

I:\Chambers Battaglia\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\13cv0810-grt IFP & dsm.wpd -1- 13cv0810 AJB (DHB)

Case 3:13-cv-00810-AJB-DHB Document 5 Filed 05/31/13 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

27

28

only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See

Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, “[u]nlike other indigent

litigants, prisoners proceeding IFP must pay the full amount of filing fees in civil actions and

appeals pursuant to the PLRA [Prison Litigation Reform Act].” Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871,

886 (9th Cir. 2002). As defined by the PLRA, a “prisoner” is “any person incarcerated or

detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent

for, violations of criminal law or the terms and conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release,

or diversionary program.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h). Here, because Plaintiff is not a “prisoner” as

defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), the filing fee provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) do not apply

to him. 

Accordingly, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s affidavit of assets and finds it is sufficient

to show that Plaintiff is unable to pay the fees or post securities required to maintain this action,

and hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [ECF 

No. 2].

II.

SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

Any complaint filed by a person proceeding IFP is subject to sua sponte dismissal by the

Court to the extent it contains claims which are “frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief froma defendant immune fromsuch relief.” 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam)

(holding that “the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”); Lopez

v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits,

but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a

claim.”). “[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true

all allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff.” Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Barren v. Harrington,

152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (§ 1915(e)(2) “parallels the language of Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”).

I:\Chambers Battaglia\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\13cv0810-grt IFP & dsm.wpd -2- 13cv0810 AJB (DHB)

Case 3:13-cv-00810-AJB-DHB Document 5 Filed 05/31/13 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

27

28

Plaintiff’s Complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

because it is duplicative of at least two other actions Plaintiff has filed in the Central and Eastern

Districts of California. Plaintiff’s Complaint contains identical claims and Defendants found

in Senator v. Cates, et al., C.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 2:11-cv-03255-UA-PLA and Senator v.

Cates, et al., E.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 2:11-cv-02029-DAD. A court “‘may take notice of

proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those

proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.’” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225

(9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)).

A prisoner’s complaint is considered frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) if it “merely

repeats pending or previously litigated claims.” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2

(9th Cir. 1995) (construing former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)) (citations and internal quotations

omitted). Thus, because Plaintiff has already filed two actions that contain identical claims and

defendants that are found in the Complaint he has filed in this action, the Court hereby

DISMISSES S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:13-cv-00810-AJB-DHB pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b)(1). See Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105 n.2; Rhodes, 621 F.3d at 1004.

To the extent that Plaintiff alleges claims that are not found in the above entitled actions,

the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim as to any named Defendant and a majority

of Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous. A complaint is frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis

either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Plaintiff alleges that

prison officials at Calipatria State Prison (“CSP”) and the Richard J. Donovan Correctional

Facility (“RJD”) placed him in the mental health program and denied himadequate medical care

“to impede Plaintiff’s ability to effect the arrest of prison officials upon release in 30 days.” 

(Compl. at 5.) Based on these allegations, Court finds the claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint to

be frivolous because they lack even “an arguable basis either in law or in fact,” and appear

“fanciful,” “fantastic,” or “delusional.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 328. 

In addition, Plaintiff alleges that unidentified correctional officers from RJD “dumped

his property” in a parking lot when he was released from custody. (Compl. at 18.) As a result,

Plaintiff “was forced to load 23 boxes, weighing up 37lbs each, into a taxi, drive to downtown

I:\Chambers Battaglia\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\13cv0810-grt IFP & dsm.wpd -3- 13cv0810 AJB (DHB)

Case 3:13-cv-00810-AJB-DHB Document 5 Filed 05/31/13 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

27

28

San Diego, and unload 23 boxes into the Amtrak station.” (Id.) To state a claim under § 1983,

Plaintiff must allege that: (1) the conduct he complains of was committed by a person acting

under color of state law; and (2) that conduct violated a right secured by the Constitution and

laws of the United States. Humphries v. County of Los Angeles, 554 F.3d 1170, 1184 (9th Cir.

2009) (citing West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988)). Plaintiff fails to allege how the failure to

transport his personal property in the manner he requested, following his release from prison, 

violates a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States. 

Plaintiff does suggest that some of his property was lost or damaged by prison officials. 

(See Compl. at 18.) However, where a Plaintiff alleges the deprivation of a liberty or property

interest caused by the unauthorized negligent or intentional action of an official, the Plaintiff

cannot state a constitutional claimwhere 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). The California Tort Claims Act (“CTCA”) provides an adequate post-deprivation state

remedy for the random and unauthorized taking of property. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813,

816-17 (9th Cir. 1994). Thus, Plaintiff has an adequate state post-deprivation remedy and his

claims relating to the loss of his property are not cognizable in this § 1983 action, and must be

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2).

Accordingly, the Court must DISMISS Plaintiff’s Complaint for all the reasons set forth

above but will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to amend his Complaint to correct the

deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court.

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [ECF No. 1] is

GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

2. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(b). However, Plaintiff is GRANTED forty five (45) days leave from the date this

I:\Chambers Battaglia\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\13cv0810-grt IFP & dsm.wpd -4- 13cv0810 AJB (DHB)

Case 3:13-cv-00810-AJB-DHB Document 5 Filed 05/31/13 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

27

28

Order is filed in which to file a First Amended Complaint which cures the deficiencies of

pleading noted above. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint must be complete in itself without

reference to the superseded pleading. See S.D. CAL. CIVLR 15.1. Defendants not named and

any claim not re-alleged in the Amended Complaint will be considered waived. See King v.

Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). If Plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint

within 45 days, this case shall remain dismissed for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2).

DATED: May 31, 2013

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

I:\Chambers Battaglia\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\13cv0810-grt IFP & dsm.wpd -5- 13cv0810 AJB (DHB)

Case 3:13-cv-00810-AJB-DHB Document 5 Filed 05/31/13 Page 5 of 5