Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02024/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02024-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bruce Thomas McKinnie
Plaintiff
Mendoza
Defendant
Munger
Defendant

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRUCE THOMAS MCKINNIE, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

C. O. MUNGER AND C. O.

MENDOZA, 

Defendants. _______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 07-2024 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison, has filed a pro se

civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several correctional officers at the

prison who he contends are responsible for the negligent destruction of personal property

that he purchased from the canteen. Plaintiff alleges that the actions of the officers was

not pursuant to "common CDC[R] practice but they are doing it anyway and refuse to

reimburse me." Plaintiff seeks compensation for the loss of his property as well as

transfer to a different prison and prosecution of the responsible officers. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek 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 which 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

Case 3:07-cv-02024-JSW Document 3 Filed 04/20/07 Page 1 of 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

2

relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

elements: (1) that a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United

States was violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting

under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Claims

In his complaint, Plaintiff asserts a claims against the named Defendants for

negligent or intentional destruction of his personal property. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to

state a federal claim for relief under § 1983.

Ordinarily, due process of law requires notice and an opportunity for some kind of

hearing prior to the deprivation of a significant property interest. See Memphis Light, Gas

& Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1, 19 (1978). However, neither the negligent nor

intentional deprivation of property states a due process claim under § 1983 if the

deprivation was random and unauthorized. 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 post-deprivation remedy, e.g., a state tort

action, precludes relief because it provides sufficient procedural due process. See

Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 128 (1990) (where state cannot foresee, and therefore

provide meaningful hearing prior to, deprivation statutory provision for post-deprivation

hearing or common law tort remedy for erroneous deprivation satisfies due process); King

v. Massarweh, 782 F.2d 825, 826 (9th Cir. 1986) (same). California law provides such an

adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir.

1994) (citing Cal. Gov't Code §§ 810-895). Therefore, where a prison official acts in a

random and unauthorized manner to deny an inmate his property (that is, he fails to act in

accord with established prison procedures), the claim must be pursued in state, not

Case 3:07-cv-02024-JSW Document 3 Filed 04/20/07 Page 2 of 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

3

federal, court. As Plaintiff here alleges that prison officials failed to provide him with the

required process before depriving him of his property, Plaintiff fails to state a due process

claim for deprivation of his property. As such, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim

under § 1983 against the named Defendants and must be DISMISSED without prejudice

to Plaintiff bringing his claims in a proper forum. 

CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED. The Clerk

shall close the file and enter judgment in this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 20, 2007

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02024-JSW Document 3 Filed 04/20/07 Page 3 of 3