Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20091013_0014380.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-06-22 12:21:55
Document Index: 706842169

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 636', '§ 900', '§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1915']

| Birks v. Runnels
Birks v. Runnels
LAWRENCE BIRKS, PLAINTIFF,v.DAVE L. RUNNELS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff, the only party to appear in this action, has consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). See Consent to Jurisdiction by United States Magistrate Judge, filed May 28, 2009.
By order filed August 12, 2009, plaintiff's original complaint was dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint.
Plaintiff's amended complaint contains the following allegations. In January 2006, Captain C Adams held a special committee hearing. Plaintiff was to appear before a Facility C-UCC for program review but he refused to sign an unlock chrono. The Committee placed plaintiff on C/C Status. As a result, an RCA television owned by plaintiff was "wrongfully confiscated and disposed." Amended Complaint, filed September 1, 2009, at 3. An administrative appeal was granted in part, requiring prison officials to make plaintiff whole for his loss. Defendants have refused to fairly compensate plaintiff for the loss of his television and have instead tried "to force another inmate old TV upon plaintiff," which plaintiff refused to accept. Id. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages.
In the instant case, the factual allegations of plaintiff's amended complaint show that the deprivation at issue was not authorized. The California Legislature has provided a remedy for tort claims against public officials in the California Government Code, §§ 900, et seq. Since plaintiff has not attempted to seek redress in the state system, he cannot sue in federal court on the claim that the state deprived him of property without due process of the law. For this reason, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, this action must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
On September 1, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.
1. Plaintiff's September 1, 2009 motion for appointment of counsel is denied; and
2. This action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.