Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

YOUNG v. CHANDLER-DACANAY

United States District Court, Northern District of California


August 26, 2003

ROBERT D. YOUNG, PLAINTIFF(S), VS. R. CHANDLER-DACANAY, ET AL., DEFENDANT(S)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Vaughn Walker, District Judge

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at California State Prison, Solano, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking relief for allegedly unconstitutional deprivation of property while at San Quentin State Prison. He also seeks to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint "is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." Id § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, however. Balistreri v Pacifica Police Dep't 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir 1990). [ Page 2]

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 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. West v Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

A negligent or intentional deprivation of a state prisoners property fails to state a due process claim under § 1983 if the state has an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Hudson v Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). California Law provides such an adequate post-deprivation remedy for deprivations of property. See Barnett v Centoni. 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir 1994) (citing Cal Gov't Code §§ 810-895). Plaintiffs allegations accordingly fail to state a claim cognizable under § 1983. See id at 817.*fn1

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis (doc # 2) is DENIED and the complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice to seeking relief in the state courts.

The Clerk shall close the file and terminate all pending motions as moot. No fee is due.

SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.