(PC) Jefferson v. Weaver, et al, No. 2:2010cv00340 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 7/13/2010 RECOMMENDING that pltf's claims for destruction of property be dismissed as non-cognizable claims and dft Agguirre be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due w/in 14 days. (Yin, K)

Download PDF

(PC) Jefferson v. Weaver, et al Doc. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JAMES L. JEFFERSON 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 No. CIV S-10-0340-MCE CMK-P Plaintiff, vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS J.R. WEAVER, et al., Defendants. / Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1). The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 19 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or 21 malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 22 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, 23 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “short and plain statement 24 of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This means 25 that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 26 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it 2 rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must allege 3 with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the 4 claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is 5 impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague 6 and conclusory. 7 8 I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS Plaintiff names three defendants in this action: Weaver, Doowly and Agguirre. 9 He claims defendant Weaver threatened to have him killed or assaulted, then followed through 10 on those threats by refusing to place him in a special needs yard and by telling other inmates he 11 was a snitch. He claims defendants Weaver and Doowly destroyed some of his property. He 12 also claims defendant Doowly put razor blades in his food. His claims against Agguirre are 13 unclear, but apparently relate to the destruction of his property as he is requesting Agguirre and 14 Doowly pay for the damage to his property. 15 By separate order, the undersigned found Plaintiff’s complaint, read liberally and 16 broadly as the court must, appears sufficient to state a cognizable claim for relief, pursuant to 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), as to defendants Weaver and Doowly for failure to 18 protect and placing his safety at risk. However, his claims for the destruction of his property are 19 insufficient to state a claim, and the undersigned will recommend those claims and defendant 20 Agguirre be dismissed from this action 21 22 II. DISCUSSION Where a prisoner alleges the deprivation of a liberty or property interest caused by 23 the unauthorized action of a prison official, there is no claim cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 24 if the state provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 25 129-32 (1990); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). A state’s post-deprivation remedy 26 may be adequate even though it does not provide relief identical to that available under § 1983. 2 1 See Hudson, 468 U.S. at 531 n.11. An available state common law tort claim procedure to 2 recover the value of property is an adequate remedy. See Zinermon, 494 U.S. at 128-29. 3 Here, given plaintiff’s ability to file a state tort action based on damage to his 4 property, he cannot state a cognizable claim under § 1983. The only apparent claim against 5 defendant Agguirre relates to the destruction of his property, and as this is not a cognizable 6 claim, defendant Agguirre should be dismissed from this action. 7 8 9 III. CONCLUSION Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of 10 his property claim. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 11 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s claims for 12 destruction of property be dismissed as non-cognizable claims under § 1983, and defendant 13 Agguirre be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 15 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 16 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 17 objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 18 objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 19 See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 20 21 22 23 DATED: July 13, 2010 ______________________________________ CRAIG M. KELLISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.