Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00153/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00153-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
County of Kern
Defendant
Hector Sanchez
Plaintiff
Schlup
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

HECTOR SANCHEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE No. 1:16-cv-00153-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF NO. 1)

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN 

THIRTY (30) DAYS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 5.) His complaint is 

before the Court for screening.

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, malicious,” or 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 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. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Case 1:16-cv-00153-MJS Document 7 Filed 02/22/16 Page 1 of 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

2

II. PLEADING STANDARD

Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of any rights, 

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” 

Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983).

Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for 

vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 

(1989).

To state a claim under § 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); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 

1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations 

are not required, but “[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) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). 

Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief 

that is plausible on its face.” Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere 

possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are 

accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 677-78.

III. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is incarcerated at California Men’s Colony, West, but complains of acts 

that occurred during his detention at the Kern County Jail while awaiting court 

proceedings. He names the County of Kern, the Kern County Sheriff’s Department, and 

Detention Officer Schlup as Defendants. 

Plaintiff’s allegations may be summarized essentially as follows.

Case 1:16-cv-00153-MJS Document 7 Filed 02/22/16 Page 2 of 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

3

On March 13, 2015, Plaintiff was transferred from Wasco State Prison to the Kern 

County Jail to await a court hearing. He was booked into the jail by Defendant Schlup. 

Schlup took possession of Plaintiff’s property and stored it in the property room. On 

March 31, 2015, Plaintiff sought to retrieve his legal materials from his property, and 

found that a substantial amount of his property could not be found. Plaintiff states that he 

is missing legal paperwork, his original literary manuscripts, and other personal articles.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Schlup was negligent in his handling of Plaintiff’s 

property. Plaintiff also alleges violations of the Due Process and Equal Protection 

clauses. He seeks money damages.

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Due Process

The Fourteenth Amendment protects individuals from the deprivation of property 

without due process of law. While an authorized, intentional deprivation of property is 

actionable under the Due Process Clause, neither negligent nor unauthorized intentional 

deprivations of property by a state or municipal employee “constitute a violation of the 

procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a 

meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available.” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 

517, 532-33 & n.13 (1984) (citation omitted).

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defedant Schlup was negligent in the handling of his 

property. Such conduct does not constitute a due process violation unless Plaintiff is 

afforded no meaningful post-deprivation remedy for the loss. Plaintiff could, and did, file 

a grievance with jail officials. California law also provides a post-deprivation remedy for 

Plaintiff’s property deprivation. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 817 (9th Cir. 1994)

(citing Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 810-895).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a Due Process claim. He will be 

given leave to amend. If he chooses to do so, he must set forth factual allegations 

sufficient to meet the legal standard set forth above.

Case 1:16-cv-00153-MJS Document 7 Filed 02/22/16 Page 3 of 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

4

B. Equal Protection

The Equal Protection Clause requires that persons who are similarly situated be 

treated alike. City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 

(1985). An equal protection claim may be established by showing that the defendant 

intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff based on the plaintiff's membership in a 

protected class, Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003), Lee v. City of 

Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th Cir. 2001), or that similarly situated individuals were 

intentionally treated differently without a rational relationship to a legitimate state 

purpose, Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000); see also Lazy Y 

Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens, 546 F.3d 580, 592 (9th Cir. 2008); North Pacifica LLC v. City of 

Pacifica, 526 F.3d 478, 486 (9th Cir. 2008).

Plaintiff has not set forth any allegations indicating that he and other similarly 

situated individuals were treated differently, whether by virtue of Plaintiff’s membership in 

a protected class or otherwise. He has failed to state an Equal Protection claim. He will 

be given leave to amend.

C. State Law Negligence

The Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim 

absent a cognizable federal claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); Herman Family Revocable Trust 

v. Teddy Bear, 254 F.3d 802, 805 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Gini v. Las Vegas Metro. 

Police Dep’t, 40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 1994). “When . . . the court dismisses the 

federal claim leaving only state claims for resolution, the court should decline jurisdiction 

over the state claims and dismiss them without prejudice.” Les Shockley Racing v. 

National Hot Rod Ass’n, 884 F.2d 504, 509 (9th Cir. 1989).

Because Plaintiff has not alleged any cognizable federal claims, the Court will not 

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claim. Plaintiff may amend this

claim, but if he fails to allege a viable federal claim in his amended complaint, the Court 

will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); 

Herman Family Revocable Trust, 254 F.3d at 805.

Case 1:16-cv-00153-MJS Document 7 Filed 02/22/16 Page 4 of 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

5

If Plaintiff chooses to amend, he is advised that the elements of negligence under 

California law are: “(1) defendant’s obligation to conform to a certain standard of conduct 

for the protection of others against unreasonable risks (duty); (2) failure to conform to 

that standard (breach of duty); (3) a reasonably close connection between the 

defendant’s conduct and resulting injuries (proximate cause); and (4) actual loss 

(damages).’” Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554, 572 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting McGarry v. 

Sax, 70 Cal. Rptr. 3d 519 (2008)).

Additionally, Plaintiff must allege compliance with the California Tort Claims Act 

(“CTCA”). Under the CTCA, a plaintiff may not maintain an action for damages against a 

public employee unless he has presented a written claim to the state Victims 

Compensation and Government Claims Board within six months of accrual of the action. 

Cal. Gov't Code §§ 905, 911.2(a), 945.4 & 950.2; Mangold v. California Pub. Utils. 

Comm'n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995). Failure to demonstrate such compliance 

constitutes a failure to state a cause of action and will result in the dismissal of state law 

claims. State of California v. Superior Court (Bodde), 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1240 (2004).

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s complaint does not state a claim. The Court will grant Plaintiff an 

opportunity to file an amended complaint. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th 

Cir. 1987). If Plaintiff chooses to amend, he must demonstrate that the alleged acts 

resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78. Plaintiff 

must set forth “sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” 

Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must also demonstrate 

that each named Defendant personally participated in a deprivation of his rights. Jones 

v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).

Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it 

is not for the purposes of adding new claims. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th 

Cir. 2007). Plaintiff should carefully read this screening order and focus his efforts on 

curing the deficiencies set forth above.

Case 1:16-cv-00153-MJS Document 7 Filed 02/22/16 Page 5 of 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

6

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, 

an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 

55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no 

longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be 

sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “First 

Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed 

under penalty of perjury. Plaintiff's amended complaint should be brief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(a). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a 

right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations 

omitted).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint form and a 

copy of his complaint, filed February 3, 2016;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must file a 

first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this 

order or a notice of voluntary dismissal; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal, 

this action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to comply with a court 

order and failure to state a claim, and will be subject to the “three strikes” 

provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00153-MJS Document 7 Filed 02/22/16 Page 6 of 6