Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00686/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00686-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTOINE L. ARDDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. PIZANO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00686-JCS (PR) 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this federal civil 

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he raises claims against correctional officers 

at Salinas Valley State Prison. After reviewing the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e), the Court DISMISSES the complaint with leave to file an amended complaint 

on or before July 25, 2015.1 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

In its initial review of this pro se complaint, this Court must dismiss any claim that

is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Compl. at 4.) The magistrate judge, 

then, has jurisdiction to issue this order, even though defendants have not been served or 

consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. See Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th 

Cir. 1995). 

Case 3:15-cv-00686-JCS Document 9 Filed 06/22/15 Page 1 of 6
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 California

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 

Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 

(2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has 

facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 

conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 

be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 

(9th Cir. 1994). 

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. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff alleges after his suicide attempt he was housed in the mental health unit of 

Salinas Valley State Prison rather than in his usual cell. During his absence, Correctional 

Officer Pizano conducted an impermissible cell search, unlawfully packed up his personal 

property, and stored it in a staff bathroom. Some time after that, the property was stolen 

and destroyed by the second and third watch porters. These allegations give rise to his first 

claim in which he alleges that Pizano and unnamed porters deprived him of his property, 

entitling him to relief under section 1983. 

His second claim is that in a separate Pizano and other correctional officers 

(S. Hampton, Nunez, Perez and Mora) threw out his legal documents and threatened to 

place him in administrative segregation in retaliation for filing grievances against staff. 

Case 3:15-cv-00686-JCS Document 9 Filed 06/22/15 Page 2 of 6
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 California

The first claim is DISMISSED without leave to amend. Neither the negligent nor 

intentional deprivation of property states a claim under § 1983 if the deprivation was, as 

was alleged here, random and unauthorized. See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535-44 

(1981). The availability of an adequate state post-deprivation remedy, e.g., a state tort 

action, precludes relief because it provides sufficient process. See Zinermon v. Burch, 494 

U.S. 113, 128 (1990). 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). Because these property claims cannot be cured by 

amendment, the dismissal is without leave to amend. Plaintiff may wish to pursue this 

claim in state court. 

Plaintiff’s second claim is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Mere denial of access 

to the courts is not sufficient to state a claim. A plaintiff must demonstrate that the denial 

caused him an actual injury by hindering his efforts to pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim. 

See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349, 351 (1996). Here, plaintiff fails to detail what his 

lawsuit was about, nor specify what the legal documents were or how their deprivation 

directly and specifically hindered his prosecution of his suit. Without such information, 

the Court cannot determine whether the deprivation caused him an actual injury by 

hindering him from pursuing a nonfrivolous legal claim. 

Furthermore, plaintiff fails to allege specific facts showing that the officers’ acts, if

committed, were retaliatory. “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First 

Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took 

some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, 

and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and 

(5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. 

Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff has the burden of showing that 

retaliation for the exercise of protected conduct was the “substantial” or “motivating” 

factor behind the defendant’s actions. Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 

429 U.S. 274, 287 (1977); Hines v. Gomez, 108 F.3d 265, 267-68 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Case 3:15-cv-00686-JCS Document 9 Filed 06/22/15 Page 3 of 6
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 California

Retaliation is not established simply by showing adverse activity by defendant after 

protected speech; rather, plaintiff must show a nexus between the two. See Huskey v. City 

of San Jose, 204 F.3d 893, 899 (9th Cir. 2000) (retaliation claim cannot rest on the logical 

fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc, i.e., “after this, therefore because of this”). 

Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations do not meet these standards. 

Also, it is not sufficient to say that the officers threatened to retaliate against him by 

placing him in administrative segregation. Plaintiff must provide details such as names, 

dates, places, a summary of the language used in order to comply with the following 

standard, and specific reasons these officers would retaliate. What were the grievances 

about? Were these officers named in the grievances? Were they retaliating on behalf of 

others? Plaintiff must allege specific facts to answer these questions and to comply with 

the following standard. “A person deprives another ‘of a constitutional right, within the 

meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative 

acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the 

deprivation of which [the plaintiff complains].” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th 

Cir. 1988) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir.1978)). The inquiry into 

causation must be individualized and focus on the duties and responsibilities of each 

individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a constitutional 

deprivation. Id.

CONCLUSION

The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file an 

amended complaint on or before July 25, 2015. The first amended complaint must 

include the caption and civil case number used in this order (15-0686 JCS (PR)) and the 

words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. It must address all deficiencies 

discussed above. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the previous 

complaints, plaintiff must include in his first amended complaint all the claims he wishes 

to present and all of the defendants he wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 

1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the prior 

Case 3:15-cv-00686-JCS Document 9 Filed 06/22/15 Page 4 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

complaint by reference. Any claims not raised in the amended complaint will be deemed 

waived. Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in 

dismissal of this action without further notice to plaintiff. 

It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. 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.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion or ask 

for an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of this 

action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

Plaintiff’s motion to file a supplemental amended complaint (Docket No. 7) is 

DENIED as moot. He may incorporate his supplemental material into the amended 

complaint. 

The Clerk shall terminate Docket No. 7. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2015

_________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

 Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00686-JCS Document 9 Filed 06/22/15 Page 5 of 6
6

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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTOINE L. ARDDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. PIZANO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00686-JCS 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on June 22, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Antoine L. Ardds ID: P-59915

Salinas Valley State Prison

P.O. Box 1050

Soledad, CA 93960-1050 

Dated: June 22, 2015

Richard W. Wieking

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Karen Hom, Deputy Clerk to Chief

Magistrate JOSEPH C. SPERO

Case 3:15-cv-00686-JCS Document 9 Filed 06/22/15 Page 6 of 6