United States District Court, N.D. California
ANTOINE L. ARDDS, Plaintiff,
M. PIZANO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
C. SPERO Chief Magistrate Judge.
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.
Standard of Review
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.
“complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'â 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).
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).
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
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.
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).
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 ...