Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01270/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01270-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
C.D.C.R.
Defendant
California Correctional Health Care Services
Defendant
Demoin C. Stroman
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEMOIN C. STROMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL 

HEALTH SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-1270 TLN CKD P

ORDER & 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

I. Introduction 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1).

Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis and has submitted a declaration that 

makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). However, the court will not assess a filing 

fee at this time. Instead, the undersigned will recommend summary dismissal of the complaint. 

II. Screening Standard

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 

Case 2:16-cv-01270-TLN-CKD Document 7 Filed 07/29/16 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

2

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 

“naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 

of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 

upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 

the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007), 

and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 

U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

III. Discussion

This action proceeds on the amended complaint filed July 11, 2016.1 Plaintiff names Dr. 

Matolon, a mental health supervisor at California Correctional Health Care Services, as the sole 

defendant. (ECF No. 6 at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that Matolon mishandled his confidential personal 

 

1

The court disregards the original complaint filed June 9, 2016, as plaintiff filed an amended 

complaint prior to screening. 

Case 2:16-cv-01270-TLN-CKD Document 7 Filed 07/29/16 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

3

and medical information in violation of state law and federal due process. Plaintiff alleges that a 

laptop containing his confidential information was left unattended in a personal vehicle and 

stolen. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff claims he was deprived of property “in the form of electronically 

stored confidential, medical, mental health and custodial records without due process of law, 

leaving them vulnerable to disclosure[.]” (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff states he has not pursued 

administrative remedies for this issue because none are available. (Id. at 3-5.) Plaintiff seeks 

monetary damages and injunctive relief. (Id. at 6.) 

First, plaintiff is required to establish standing for each claim he asserts. DaimlerChrysler 

Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 352 (2006). If a plaintiff has no standing, the court has no subject 

matter jurisdiction. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Adams, 629 F.2d 587, 593 n. 11 (9th Cir. 1980) 

(“[B]efore reaching a decision on the merits, we [are required to] address the standing issue to 

determine if we have jurisdiction.”). There are three requirements that must be met for a plaintiff 

to have standing: (1) the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact”—an invasion of a legally 

protected interest which is both concrete and particularized and actual or imminent; (2) there must 

be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and (3) it must be 

likely that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 

504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992); Wash. Legal Found. v. Legal Found. of Wash., 271 F.3d 835, 847 

(9th Cir. 2001) (en banc). Here, plaintiff has not shown he has standing to sue because the

complaint demonstrates only that the theft of the state’s laptop has the potential to injure plaintiff. 

Plaintiff alleges no actual misuse of his personal information stemming from the theft. 

Second, the violation of state tort law, state regulations, rules and policies of the CDCR, 

or other state law is not sufficient to state a claim for relief under § 1983. To state a claim under § 

1983, there must be a deprivation of federal constitutional or statutory rights. See Paul v. Davis, 

424 U.S. 693 (1976). Although the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law 

claims, plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 

1367.

Third, plaintiff does not allege that defendant Matolon is liable for any constitutional 

violation. An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the facts establish 

Case 2:16-cv-01270-TLN-CKD Document 7 Filed 07/29/16 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

4

the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal connection 

between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Hansen 

v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 

1978). The complaint fails to show how Matolon was involved in any alleged violation of 

plaintiff’s federal rights. 

Fourth, the complaint fails to state a claim for violation of the Fourth Amendment, which 

governs the reasonableness of government searches and seizures. Here, no government search or 

seizure is alleged. Nor does the complaint state a claim under the Due Process Clause, which 

protects prisoners from being deprived of property without due process of law. Wolff v. 

McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). “It is well established that negligent conduct is ordinarily 

not enough to state a claim alleging a denial of liberty or property under the Fourteenth 

Amendment. See Doe v. Beard, 2014 WL 3507196, *6 (C.D. Cal. July 14, 2014), citing Daniels 

v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330 (1986); Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 347 (1986) (“[T]he 

Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not implicated by the lack of due care of an 

official causing unintended injury to life, liberty or property. In other words, where a government 

official is merely negligent in causing the injury, no procedure for compensation is 

constitutionally required.”). 

For these reasons, the complaint fails to state a cognizable claim under § 1983. 

IV. No Leave to Amend

If the court finds that a complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, the court 

has discretion to dismiss with or without leave to amend. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-

30 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Leave to amend should be granted if it appears possible that the 

defects in the complaint could be corrected, especially if a plaintiff is pro se. Id. at 1130-31; see 

also Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (“A pro se litigant must be given 

leave to amend his or her complaint, and some notice of its deficiencies, unless it is absolutely 

clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.”) (citing Noll v. 

Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987)). However, if, after careful consideration, it is clear 

that a complaint cannot be cured by amendment, the court may dismiss without leave to amend. 

Case 2:16-cv-01270-TLN-CKD Document 7 Filed 07/29/16 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

5

Cato, 70 F.3d at 1005-06.

The undersigned finds that, as set forth above, plaintiff lacks standing and his allegations 

show only speculative injury. Because the complaint does not state a cognizable federal claim, 

the court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. As it appears amendment 

would be futile, the undersigned will recommend that this action be dismissed without leave to 

amend. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request to 

proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2.) is granted. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the amended complaint (ECF No. 6) be 

dismissed without prejudice and this case closed. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings 

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 

(9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: July 29, 2016

2 / stro1270.14.new

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-01270-TLN-CKD Document 7 Filed 07/29/16 Page 5 of 5