Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01070/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01070-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH A. GEORGE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

R. SCHULTZ, ET AL.,

Defendants.

_______________________________

__

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-1070 CW (PR)

ORDER ADDRESSING PENDING

MOTIONS, DISMISSING ACTION

AND DENYING IN FORMA

PAUPERIS STATUS

(Docket nos. 2, 7, 10, 11)

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Joseph A. George is a prisoner of the State of

California who is incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison

(PBSP). He has filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §

1983 and seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Venue is

proper in this Court because the injuries complained of occurred

in Del Norte County, which is located within the Northern

District of California. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 84, 1391.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in 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 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that 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. Id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 

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 
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1Plaintiff also has filed a "Motion for Leave to File Amended

Complaint and Proposed Amendments." The proposed amendments actually

are corrections to errata in the amended complaint. The Court

liberally construes these corrections as an amendment to the first

amended complaint rather than as a superceding second amended complaint

and GRANTS Plaintiff's request. (Docket no. 11.)

2

(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). "'[A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to

state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff

can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would

entitle him to relief.'" Terracom v. Valley National Bank, 49

F.3d 555, 558 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355

U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). Pro se pleadings must be liberally

construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696,

699 (9th Cir. 1988).

BACKGROUND

In his first amended complaint1 Plaintiff asserts that after

he arrived at PBSP from Lancaster State Prison correctional

Officer Schultz confiscated Plaintiff's personal property and

then kept it for himself, instead of sending it to Plaintiff's

family. Plaintiff appealed the issue through the inmate

grievance process. Although the grievance proceeded all the way

to the third level of review, Officer Schultz was not

interviewed because he had been on a leave of absence since May,

2004. The first level of appeal concluded that what mostly

likely happened was that Plaintiff and another inmate's mail

were mislabeled and each sent to the other's address. This was

supported by information that Plaintiff's family had received

property from PBSP that did not belong to Plaintiff. 
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 2 Nor is a prisoner protected by the Fourth Amendment against the

seizure, destruction or conversion of his property. Taylor v. Knapp,

871 F.2d 803, 806 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 868 (1989).

3

Plaintiff further alleges that other officers tried to

dissuade him from filing a staff complaint in March, 2005 by

threatening to press assault charges against him. Plaintiff

filed two first level administrative appeals regarding this

issue and they were combined. See Plaintiff's Exhibits 15 & 16. 

Plaintiff states that these appeals were denied, citing to the

appeal screening form which is Exhibit 16. However, that form

pertains to appeal PBSP-B-04-00940, which is the appeal which

Plaintiff pursued regarding Officer Schultz. Plaintiff states

that he then withdrew his appeal regarding the alleged threat. 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff alleges that Officer Schultz stole his property

and that other officers conspired to conceal this fact. When a

prisoner suffers a property loss that is random and unauthorized

his remedy lies with the State, as neither the negligent nor

intentional deprivation of property states a due process claim

under § 1983 under such circumstances. See 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, for example a State tort action, precludes

relief because it provides adequate procedural due process.2

King v. Massarweh, 782 F.2d 825, 826 (9th Cir. 1986). 

California law provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

any property deprivations. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813,

816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Cal. Gov't Code §§ 810-895). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff's claim for the deprivation of his

property, including his conspiracy claim, is DISMISSED with

prejudice.

Plaintiff's allegation of a First Amendment violation

resulting from threats by staff also cannot go forward. Based

on the sequence of events described by Plaintiff with respect to

his administrative appeal of this issue, the Court finds that

the claim is unexhausted and therefore must be DISMISSED. See

42 U.S.C. 

§ 1997e(a); Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 n.9 (9th

Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 50 (2003). The dismissal is

without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a new complaint once the

claim has been exhausted through all levels of administrative 

review. Id.

Finally, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for a

preliminary injunction as there is no likelihood of success on

the merits of any of his claims.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 

1. Plaintiff's property claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

2. Plaintiff's First Amendment claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

3. The request for a preliminary injunction is DENIED.

4. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.

This Order terminates all pending motions.

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the

file.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 11/9/05

 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge