United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 28, 2019, the
court screened plaintiff's complaint as the court is
required to do under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court
dismissed plaintiff's complaint with leave to file an
amended complaint. Plaintiff has now filed an amended
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. §
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, 93-94
(2007), and construe the complaint in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes,
416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
plaintiff was informed when the court screened his original
complaint, in 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).
amended complaint, as in his original, plaintiff complains
about the deprivation of personal property. Plaintiff alleges
his property was taken unlawfully, but does not point to
facts indicating why the deprivation was unlawful. Plaintiff
asserts his property was taken in retaliation for something,
but does not identify what had happened to cause the alleged
retaliation. Plaintiff does not even indicate how his
property was taken, the reasons given for the deprivation,
nor does he specify who took his property. For these reasons,
plaintiff's claims are too vague and conclusory to state
a claim upon relief could be granted.
when the court screened plaintiff's original complaint,
plaintiff was informed:
Generally speaking, “an unauthorized intentional
deprivation of property by a state employee” does not,
by itself, amount to a violation of federal law. See
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). Only
authorized, intentional deprivations constitute actionable
violations of the Due Process Clause. An authorized
deprivation is one carried out pursuant to established state
procedures, regulations, or statutes. Piatt v.
McDougall, 773 F.2d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 1985).
Plaintiff does not allege, or point to facts suggesting, his
property deprivation was “carried out pursuant to
established state procedures, ” etc.
these reasons, plaintiff again fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted with respect to deprivation of
personal property. Considering the guidance given to
plaintiff following the dismissal of his original complaint
as to the contents of the amended complaint, granting
plaintiff leave to amend a second time appears futile.
accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the
Clerk of the Court assign a district court judge to this
HEREBY RECOMMENDED that;
1. Plaintiffs amended complaint be dismissed for failure to
state a claim upon which ...