Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01062/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01062-11/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCIS W. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS CORRECTIONAL

OFFICER PETERSON, 

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01062-AWI-GSA PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR CORRECTION OF ERROR AND FOR

LEAVE TO PROCEED ON DUE PROCESS

CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT VALLES

FOR DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY

(Doc. 29)

Plaintiff Francis W. Davis (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 2, 2007, the Court issued

an order adopting in part the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations, allowing this

action to proceed on plaintiff’s retaliation and equal protection claims against defendants Valles and

Peterson, and dismissing plaintiff’s other claims. (Doc. 19.) On September 24, 2007, plaintiff filed

a motion contending that the Court erred in reviewing plaintiff’s due process claim against defendant

Valles as one for deprivation of a liberty interest rather than a property interest and requesting that

he be allowed to proceed against defendant Valles on his claim that he was deprived of his property

without due process of law. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion is without merit and is

denied. 

In a Findings and Recommendations, the Magistrate Judge analyzed plaintiff’s due process

claim against defendant Valles as one for deprivation of property without due process of law and

recommended that it be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 17, 7:3-17.)

Case 1:06-cv-01062-AWI-GSA Document 41 Filed 03/07/08 Page 1 of 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

 The intentional, malicious, retaliatory destruction of personal property by an officer does not give rise to a 1

claim for relief under section 1983 for violation of the Due Process Clause. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533

(1984). (Doc. 18, Obj., 7:22-24.)

2

Plaintiff’s claim against defendant Peterson was analyzed as one for deprivation of a protected liberty

interest without due process of law, and the Magistrate Judge recommended that the claim be

dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 17, 4:22-5:20). 

In the Court’s order addressing the Findings and Recommendations, the Court adopted in full

the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations that plaintiff’s due process claims be dismissed, with

prejudice. The only portion of the Findings and Recommendations the Court declined to adopt was

the recommendation that plaintiff’s equal protection claims be dismissed. (Docs. 17, 8:25-26; Doc.

19, 4:21-25.) Although the Court did not specifically set forth a detailed analysis on plaintiff’s

property claim as it did with plaintiff’s liberty interest claim, the property claim is not cognizable

under section 1983 for the reasons set forth by the Magistrate Judge and the claim was dismissed by

Court, with prejudice.1

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed with his due process property claim against defendant

Valles on the ground that it was dismissed in error, filed September 24, 2007, is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01062-AWI-GSA Document 41 Filed 03/07/08 Page 2 of 2