Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20120522_0006970.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-07-21 12:49:02
Document Index: 330082368

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

| Rafael Lopez v. Sgt. Lemon
Rafael Lopez v. Sgt. Lemon
RAFAEL LOPEZ, PLAINTIFF,v.SGT. LEMON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "requires only 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' in order to 'give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;" it must contain factual allegations sufficient "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic, id. However, "[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (quoting Bell, 127 S.Ct. at 1964, in turn quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, id., and construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984).
Plaintiff alleges that defendants, correctional officers at High Desert State Prison, destroyed plaintiff's personal property. Plaintiff seeks replacement of his property or damages in the amount of one million dollars.
In the instant case, plaintiff has not alleged any facts which suggest that the deprivation was authorized. The California Legislature has provided a remedy for tort claims against public officials in the California Government Code, §§ 900, et seq. Because 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. This action should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis be denied, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), and this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).