United States District Court, E.D. California
CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was
referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and plaintiff has consented to have
all matters in this action before a United States Magistrate
Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis and has submitted
a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a). However, the court will not assess a filing
fee at this time. Instead, the undersigned will recommend
summary dismissal of the complaint.
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. §
is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either
in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221,
1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a
claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably
meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are
clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The
critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however
inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis.
See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.
1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.
order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a
complaint must contain more than “naked assertions,
” “labels and conclusions” or “a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, “[t]hreadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements do not suffice.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief
has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
“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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon
which relief can be granted, the court must accept the
allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes,
416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
complaint, plaintiff alleges a laptop computer was stolen
from one of defendant's employees and that the laptop
contained “personal identifiable confidential medical
information and protected health information”
pertaining to plaintiff. Plaintiff references a letter from
defendant informing plaintiff of a “potential
breach” of his information on February 25, 2016, when
an unencrypted laptop was stolen from the vehicle of one of
plaintiff is required to establish standing for each claim he
asserts. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S.
332, 352 (2006). If a plaintiff has no standing, the court
has no subject matter jurisdiction. Nat'l Wildlife
Fed'n v. Adams, 629 F.2d 587, 593 n. 11 (9th Cir.
1980) (“[B]efore reaching a decision on the merits, we
[are required to] address the standing issue to determine if
we have jurisdiction.”). There are three requirements
that must be met for a plaintiff to have standing: (1) the
plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in
fact”-an invasion of a legally protected interest which
is both concrete and particularized and actual or imminent;
(2) there must be a causal connection between the injury and
the conduct complained of; and (3) it must be likely that the
injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan
v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992);
Wash. Legal Found. v. Legal Found. of Wash., 271
F.3d 835, 847 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc). Here, plaintiff has
not shown he has standing to sue because the complaint
demonstrates only that the theft of the state's laptop
has the potential to injure plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges no
actual misuse of his personal information stemming from the
defendant, as a California agency, is immune from suits for
damages under the Eleventh Amendment. Dittman v.
California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025-26 (1999).
the complaint fails to state a claim for relief under federal
law. The Fourth Amendment governs the reasonableness of
government searches and seizures. Here, no government search
or seizure is alleged. The Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment protects prisoners from being deprived
of property without due process of law. Wolff v.
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). However,
“[i]t is well established that negligent conduct is
ordinarily not enough to state a claim alleging a denial of
liberty or property under the Fourteenth Amendment. See
Doe v. Beard, 2014 WL 3507196, *6 (C.D. Cal. July 14,
2014), citing Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330
(1986); Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 347 (1986)
(“[T]he Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
is not implicated by the lack of due care of an official
causing unintended injury to life, liberty or property. In
other words, where a government official is merely negligent
in causing the injury, no procedure for compensation is