The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER SECTION 1983
Findings and Recommendations Following Screening of Complaint
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, 330 n.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)).
Plaintiff is currently housed at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility at Corcoran, where the events at issue in this action occurred. Plaintiff's claim in this action stems from the deprivation and destruction of his personal property. Plaintiff names the following defendants: Correctional Officer (C/O) Martinez; Sergeant Turner; Lieutenant Tolson, Associate Warden Lais.
Plaintiff alleges that on September 1, 2008, he returned to his cell to find it in disarray. Plaintiff noticed that his boombox and CD player were missing. Plaintiff asked Defendant (C/O) Martinez "if he would return his erroneously confiscated property." Martinez told Plaintiff that he would. On September 24, 2008, C/O Martinez returned the boombox, but it was inoperable. C/O Martinez failed to return the CD player. Martinez also failed to provide Plaintiff with a contraband receipt for the property that he confiscated during the cell search on September 1, 2008.
Plaintiff filed an inmate grievance. Defendant Turner "denied Plaintiff's 602 because he disregarded plaintiff's evidence of ownership." Defendants Tolson and Lais also denied Plaintiff's grievance, failing to take into account Plaintiff's evidence of ownership.
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). This rule applies to the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause as well. Raditch, 929 F.2d at 481. Thus, where the state provides a meaningful post-deprivation remedy, only authorized, intentional deprivations constitute actionable violations of the Due Process ...