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.

Thomas L. Davis v. Steve Putnam

December 17, 2010

THOMAS L. DAVIS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
STEVE PUTNAM, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L.Beck United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS (DOC. 1)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DOC. 9)

I. Background

Order

Plaintiff Thomas L. Davis ("Plaintiff") is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal actors.*fn1 Plaintiff initiated this action by filing his complaint on August 31, 2010. Doc. 1. Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, filed September 22, 2010. Doc. 9.

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).

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, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim that is plausible on its face.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

II. Summary of Complaint

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at United States Penitentiary at Atwater ("USP-Atwater), where the events giving rise to this action occurred. Plaintiff names as Defendants lieutenant Steve Putnam, lieutenant Cameron Brigham, correctional officer Joey Garza, lieutenant Z. Morgan, correctional officer J. Harris, associate warden J. Bell, and the Designation and Sentence Computation Center ("DSCC") Administrator.

Plaintiff alleges the following. On November 14, 2009, Defendant Cameron Brigham stole Plaintiff's property, and then made false statements regarding that property. On December 21, 2009, Defendant J. Harris confiscated or threw away several items. Defendant Putnam was informed that half of Plaintiff's legal property was missing and that Plaintiff's old cell mate had Plaintiff's other materials. On June 30, 2010, Defendant Putnam wrote a false statement that attempted to bring Plaintiff's security level from 22 to 24. On June 21, 2010 Defendant Bell informed Plaintiff that he was being held in the Special housing unit pursuant to DSCC for security reasons until a transfer in December 2010.

Plaintiff requests as relief monetary damages, a prison transfer to Michigan, and criminal prosecution of Defendants.

III. Analysis

A. Due Process - 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 (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 (1984) (citing Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 435-36 (1982)); Quick v. Jones, 754 F.2d 1521, 1524 (9th Cir. 1985), neither negligent nor unauthorized intentional deprivations of property by a state employee "constitute a violation of the ...


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.