Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Robert James Wood v. James Yates

December 17, 2010

ROBERT JAMES WOOD,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
JAMES YATES, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S.Austin United States Magistrate Judge

PC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER SECTION 1983 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Findings and Recommendations Following Screening of Complaint

I. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on April 9, 2008.

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 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).

"Rule 8(a)'s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited exceptions," none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), 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). "Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. However, "the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff's factual allegations." Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330n.9 (1989). "[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled." Bruns v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

II. Plaintiff's Claims

A. Summary of Complaint

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) at the California Medical Facility at Vacaville, brings this civil rights action against correctional officials employed by the CDCR at Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP). The allegations in this lawsuit stem from Plaintiff's transfer to Vacaville from Pleasant Valley. Plaintiff names the following individual defendants: James Yates, PVSP Warden; Correctional Officer (C/O) Reisner; C/O Valencia; C/O Collins; C/O Modenaldo; C/O Sharp; the CDCR.

On July 13, 2009, while at PVSP, Plaintiff was ordered to pack all of his property in preparation for a scheduled transfer to CMF Vacaville. (Compl. 9:7.) Plaintiff was advised that he was only allowed to send six cubic feet of his property at state expense. Plaintiff was advised that the rest of his property would be held in storage for 30 days, and destroyed if he did not ship it home. (Compl. 10:9.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Collins then informed him that if his property was not sent via UPS in fifteen days at a cost of $100.00, she would dispose of Plaintiff's property.

On July 16, 2009, Plaintiff was received at CMF Vacaville. (Compl. 11:26.) Plaintiff alleges that he received 5 of the 11 boxes that he packed. Plaintiff alleges that on July 30, 2009, he was informed that the remaining 6 boxes would be shipped to him at a later date. (Compl. 12:11.) Plaintiff does not allege whether he ever received the boxes.

B. Deprivation of Property

Where a prisoner challenges the deprivation of a liberty or property interest, caused by the unauthorized negligent or intentional action of a prison official, the prisoner cannot state a constitutional claim where the state provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 129-30 (1990); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam); Raditch v.United States, 929 F.2d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 1991); Taylor v. Knapp, 871 f.2d 803, 805(9th Cir. 1989). California Law provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for any unauthorized property deprivations. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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