Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01130/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01130-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
C. Lesinak
Defendant
Quincy Sims
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUINCY SIMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. LESINAK, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-01130-SKO (PC)

FIRST SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, 

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 

UNDER SECTION 1983

(Doc. 1)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

First Screening Order

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

Plaintiff Quincy Sims, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 21, 2014. The Court is required to screen 

complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an 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 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 1:14-cv-01130-SKO Document 8 Filed 04/22/15 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

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, 129 S.Ct. 1937 

(2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and 

courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 

F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated 

in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). This 

requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere 

possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; 

Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. However, prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are still 

entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. 

Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted).

II. Discussion

A. Allegations

Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Centinela State Prison in Imperial, California, 

brings this action against Lieutenant C. Lesniak and Correctional Officers John Doe 1 and John 

Doe 2. Plaintiff’s claim arises out of the confiscation of his personal property at Kern Valley State 

Prison in Delano, California. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Lesniak confiscated his personal 

property on September 18, 2013, as a result of his transfer to administrative segregation. When 

Plaintiff’s property was subsequently reissued to him, some items were missing, including his CD 

player, six CDs, a bottle of prayer oil, and an RCA jack. Plaintiff filed an inmate appeal against 

Defendants Lesniak and Does 1 and 2 stating that his missing property was on his approvedproperty inventory sheet and that he was never issued a Rules Violation Report, but the appeal was 

never returned. 

Case 1:14-cv-01130-SKO Document 8 Filed 04/22/15 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

B. Confiscation of Personal Property

The Due Process Clause protects prisoners from being deprived of property without due 

process of law, Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556, 94 S.Ct. 2963 (1974), and prisoners have a 

protected interest in their personal property, Hansen v. May, 502 F.2d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 1974). 

However, while an authorized, intentional deprivation of property is actionable under the Due 

Process Clause, see Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532, n.13, 104 S.Ct. 3194 (1984) (citing 

Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 435-36, 102 S.Ct. 1148 (1982)); Quick v. Jones, 

754 F.2d 1521, 1524 (9th Cir. 1985), “[a]n unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a 

state employee does not 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, 468 U.S. at 533.1

It is unclear from Plaintiff’s complaint what happened to his missing property items or 

what precise role the defendants played in its disappearance. Plaintiff’s inclusion of the allegation 

that the items were on his approved-property list and he was not issued a Rules Violation Report 

to support the confiscation suggests that he knows what happened to the items and they did not 

simply disappear due to loss or theft. Also, although Plaintiff alleges the items were confiscated 

without due process, that assertion is undercut by his apparent knowledge of what happened to the 

items. Nevada Dept. of Corrections v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 

132 S.Ct. 1823 (2012). Due process generally requires notice and an opportunity to be heard but 

the concept is flexible and does not necessarily require, for example, an individual pre-deprivation 

hearing. Greene, 648 F.3d at 1019. As presently pled, Plaintiff’s allegations fall short of 

supporting a viable due process claim under section 1983, but the Court will provide Plaintiff with 

the opportunity to clarify the basis for his claim.

///

///

 

1

California provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) 

(citing Cal. Gov’t Code §§810-895). 

Case 1:14-cv-01130-SKO Document 8 Filed 04/22/15 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

III. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 

1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Akhtar 

v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 

2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). However, Plaintiff may not 

change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George 

v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but under section 1983, 

it must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional 

rights and liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel under the theory of mere 

respondeat superior, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-07 (9th Cir. 

2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 (2012). 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). 

Finally, an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be “complete in itself without 

reference to the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 220. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim 

under section 1983;

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

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

amended complaint; and

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-01130-SKO Document 8 Filed 04/22/15 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

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this 

action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim under section 

1983.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01130-SKO Document 8 Filed 04/22/15 Page 5 of 5