Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00505/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00505-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Randall B. Clark
Plaintiff
Shearer
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

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANDALL B. CLARK,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICER SHEARER

(HANFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT),

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-CV-00505-SMS 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR

LACK OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION

(Doc. 1)

Screening Order

Plaintiff Randall B. Clark is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. 

Plaintiff filed his complaint on March 22, 2010.

I. Screening Requirement

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

“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). 

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

1

Case 1:10-cv-00505-SMS Document 5 Filed 03/29/10 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

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

II. Factual Summary

In the course of arresting Plaintiff on December 19, 2009, Defendant Shearer accused

Plaintiff of lying about owning his truck. Defendant gave Plaintiff’s keys to another individual

who claimed to own it. When Defendant later learned that Plaintiff owned the truck, he

apologized to Plaintiff, advised Plaintiff that the truck had been recovered in good condition and

would be returned to the home of Plaintiff’s mother. In fact, the truck had been damaged. 

Plaintiff sues Shearer for compensatory and punitive damages.

III. Negligence Claim

The complaint states a claim against Defendant for negligence in transferring Plaintiff’s

truck to another individual despite Plaintiff’s protestations of ownership. It seeks compensation

for the resulting damage. Accordingly, Plaintiff alleges a violation of California tort law.

Violation of state tort 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. 

Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 697-98 (1976). Because Plaintiff does not allege any federal

constitutional or statutory violation, this Court does not have jurisdiction over his claim. Plaintiff

must bring his negligence claim in California state court.

This Court does not express an opinion on the viability of Plaintiff’s state claim. 

California’s Tort Claims Act requires that a tort claim against a public entity or its employees be

presented to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, formerly known

as the State Board of Control, no more than six months after the cause of action accrues. Cal.

Gov’t Code §§ 905.2, 910, 911.2, 945.4, 950-950.2 (West 2009). Presentation of a written claim

and action on or rejection of the claim are conditions precedent to a tort claim action. State v.

Superior Court of Kings County (Bodde), 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1237 (2004); Mangold v. California

Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995). To state a tort claim against a public

employee, a plaintiff must allege compliance with the Tort Claims Act. Bodde, 32 Cal.4th at

1245; Mangold, 67 F.3d at 1477; Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839

2

Case 1:10-cv-00505-SMS Document 5 Filed 03/29/10 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

F.2d 621, 627 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff should investigate his rights and responsibilities under

California law and take such actions as may be necessary to preserve his rights.

III. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which federal constitutional relief may be

granted. Jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim lies in California state court. Accordingly, this Court

HEREBY ORDERS dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim over which this

Court has jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:10-cv-00505-SMS Document 5 Filed 03/29/10 Page 3 of 3