(PC) Blackwell v. CDCR, No. 1:2007cv00973 - Document 21 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 1/29/2009, Recommending DISMISSAL OF FEDERAL DUE PROCESS CLAIM, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, AND REMAND OF PLAINTIFF'S 1 ACTION TO FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT. Matter referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii. (Objections to F&R due 3/3/2009) (Figueroa, O)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Blackwell v. CDCR Doc. 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RODNEY KARL BLACKWELL, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00973-AWI-SMS-PC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF FEDERAL DUE PROCESS CLAIM, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, AND REMAND OF PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TO FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT v. A. DELK, 13 Defendant. (Doc. 1) 14 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 15 / 16 Findings and Recomendations Following Screening of the Complaint 17 I. Procedural History 18 This is a civil action filed by plaintiff Rodney Karl Blackwell (“Plaintiff”), a state 19 prisoner proceeding pro se. The complaint names a California Correctional Officer, A. Delk, and 20 the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) as Defendants. Defendants 21 removed this action from the Fresno County Superior Court on July 5, 2007. On July 8, 2008, 22 the Court issued an order dismissing CDCR from the action. Currently before the Court is 23 Plaintiff’s original complaint, filed in state court on March 2, 2007. 24 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 25 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 26 Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 27 legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 3 “Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited 4 exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 5 U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a 6 short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. 7 Civ. P. 8(a). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s 8 claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. However, “the 9 liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 10 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not 11 supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union 12 Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 13 (9th Cir. 1982)). 14 II. Plaintiff’s Claims 15 A. Summary of the Complaint 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner currently housed at Kern Valley State Prison (KSP) in Delano, 17 California. The events giving rise to the complaint occurred while Plaintiff was housed at 18 Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP). Plaintiff alleges state and federal constitutional violations. 19 According to the complaint, on January 20, 2006, Plaintiff’s personal property was 20 subjected to a search in order to facilitate the transfer of Plaintiff and his property to KSP. 21 Plaintiff alleges that after the search was concluded, Defendant Delk (“Defendant”) knowingly 22 failed to cause Plaintiff’s personal property to be packed and transferred with Plaintiff. Although 23 the complaint mentions the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, Plaintiff’s 24 allegations implicate Plaintiff’s right to due process in connection with the deprivation of 25 Plaintiff’s personal property. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 B. Plaintiff’s Due Process Claim 2 The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects prisoners from being 3 deprived of property without due process of law, Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974), 4 and prisoners have a protected interest in their personal property, Hansen v. May, 502 F.2d 728, 5 730 (9th Cir. 1974). However, a complaint alleging intentional deprivation of a prisoner’s 6 property fails to state a claim under section 1983 if the state provides an adequate post 7 deprivation remedy. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Hudson v. 8 Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984)). California law provides an adequate post-deprivation 9 remedy for property deprivations caused by prison officials. Barnett, 31 F.3d at 816; CAL. GOV ’T 10 CODE § 810-895 (2008). 11 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant intentionally deprived Plaintiff of his personal property 12 while acting under the color of state law. California provides adequate post deprivation remedies 13 to prisoners who have been deprived of property by state prison officials. Accordingly, the 14 complaint fails to state a claim for relief under section 1983. Because Plaintiff’s claim is not 15 cognizable as a matter of law, as California provides an express post-deprivation remedy to 16 prisoners for deprivation of property by prison officials, the Court recommends Plaintiff not be 17 given an opportunity to amend the complaint. 18 III. Conclusion and Order 19 The complaint fails to state a claim for relief under section 1983, however, the complaint 20 may state cognizable claims for relief under California law. As the Court recommends dismissal 21 of Plaintiff’s only federal claim, the Court finds remand of Plaintiff’s state law claims to be 22 appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (2008) (Court may decline to exercise supplemental 23 jurisdiction where federal claims have been dismissed). Accordingly, the Court HEREBY 24 RECOMMENDS: 25 1. 26 for which relief can be granted under federal law; and 27 28 Plaintiff’s federal due process claim be DISMISSED, for failure to state a claim 2. Plaintiff’s action be REMANDED to the Fresno County Superior Court. /// 3 1 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 2 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) 3 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written 4 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 5 Findings and Recommendations.” 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: icido3 January 29, 2009 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4
]]>
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.
