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.

Ardds v. Pizano

United States District Court, N.D. California

July 26, 2016

ANTOINE L. ARDDS, Plaintiff,
v.
M. PIZANO, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER OF DISMISSAL

          JOSEPH C. SPERO Chief Magistrate Judge.

         INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he raises claims against correctional officers at Salinas Valley State Prison. The original and first amended complaints were dismissed with leave to amend because plaintiff failed to state claims for relief. The second amended complaint similarly fails to state a claim. Accordingly, the action is DISMISSED.

         DISCUSSION

         A. Standard of Review

         In its initial review of this pro se complaint, this Court must dismiss any claim that is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).

         A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “A plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 553-56 (2007) (citations omitted). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55 (9th Cir. 1994).

         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. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

         B. Legal Claims

         1.Original Complaint

         In the original complaint, plaintiff raised two claims. In the first, plaintiff alleged that while he was housed in the mental health unit of Salinas Valley State Prison, Correctional Officer Pizano conducted an impermissible cell search, unlawfully packed up his personal property, and stored it in a staff bathroom. Some time after that, the property was stolen and destroyed by second and third watch porters.

         In the second claim, plaintiff alleged that Pizano and other correctional officers (S. Hampton, Nunez, Perez and Mora), threw out his legal documents and threatened to place him in administrative segregation in retaliation for filing grievances against staff.

         The Court dismissed the first claim without leave to amend because the availability of an adequate state post-deprivation remedy for the random and unauthorized deprivation of property, e.g., a state tort action, precludes relief under section 1983. See Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 128 (1990).

         The Court dismissed the second claim with leave to amend. Plaintiff was instructed that he needed to allege specific facts showing that defendants' actions caused him an actual injury by hindering his efforts to pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349, 351 (1996). He was also instructed that he had to allege specific facts showing that 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.