(PC) Wolinski v. Acosta et al, No. 1:2015cv00519 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that That This Action Be Dismissed For Failure To State A Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted And That This Action Count As A Strike Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Objections Due In Thirty Days (Doc. 17 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/19/2015. F&R's referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 12/24/2015. (Fahrney, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 KRZYSTOF WOLINSKI, Plaintiff, 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED AND THAT THIS ACTION COUNT AS A STRIKE UNDER 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). v. 16 17 Case No. 1:15-cv-00519-LJO-SAB-PC N. ACOSTA, et al., 18 Defendants. OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS 19 20 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 21 § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 22 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s complaint, filed April 3, 23 2015. 24 I. 25 ALLEGATIONS 26 This action proceeds on the November 6, 2015, first amended complaint filed in response 27 to an earlier order dismissing the original complaint and granting Plaintiff leave to file an 28 amended complaint. In the order dismissing the original complaint, the Court noted the 1 1 following allegations. Plaintiff alleged that on April 4, 2014, Defendants Acosta and Zepeda 2 were assigned as transportation officers for Plaintiff’s transfer from CSP Corcoran to Kern 3 Valley State Prison. Prior to loading Plaintiff into the van, Defendants ordered Plaintiff to 4 surrender his prescription eyeglasses for security reasons. Upon arrival at Kern Valley State 5 Prison, Plaintiff asked for his glasses. Plaintiff alleged that “both correct. offic. swiftly left 6 living (sic) behind my bag with medications but no Rx’s glasses which they stoled (sic) from me 7 on 04-04-2014. Unfortunately they forgot that property inventory form CDC 1083 was issued to 8 me.” (Compl. ¶ IV.) Plaintiff alleged that Sgt. Hernandez “maliciously denied my 602 & 9 perjured my medical chrono CDCR 7410.” 10 II. 11 DISCUSSION 12 A. Deprivation of Property 13 The Due Process Clause protects prisoners from being deprived of property without due 14 process of law, Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974), and prisoners have a protected 15 interest in their personal property Hansen v. May, 502 F.2d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 1974). However, 16 while an authorized, intentional deprivation of personal property is actionable under the Due 17 Process Clause, see Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532 n. 13 (1984)(citing Logan v. 18 Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (1982)); Quick v. Jones, 754 F.2d 1521, 1524 (9th Cir. 19 1985), neither negligent nor unauthorized intentional deprivations of property by a state 20 employee “constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause of the 21 Fourteenth Amendment if a meaning post-deprivation remedy for the loss is available.” Hudson, 22 468 U.S. at 533. California law provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for any property 23 deprivations. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-817 (9th Cir. 1994)(citing Cal. Gov’t Code 24 §§ 810-995). In the order dismissing the original complaint, Plaintiff was advised that the 25 allegations of the complaint clearly indicated an unauthorized deprivation of property. Because 26 California has an adequate post-deprivation remedy, Plaintiff cannot state a claim for relief on 27 his claim regarding the loss of his prescription eyeglasses. In the first amended complaint, 28 Plaintiff re-states, in greater detail, the allegations of the original complaint. The allegations of 2 1 the first amended complaint clearly indicate that the deprivation of Plaintiff’s property was 2 unauthorized. Because there is an adequate post-deprivation remedy under California law, this 3 claim must be dismissed. 4 B. Eighth Amendment 5 The Court noted that Plaintiff may, however, hold Defendants liable if he alleges facts 6 indicating that depriving Plaintiff of his eyeglasses was intentional and caused him serious 7 injury. In order to violate the Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual 8 punishment, there must be a “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners.” 9 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000)( quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 10 104 (1976)). Lopez takes a two-prong approach to evaluating whether medical care, or lack 11 thereof, rises to the level of deliberate indifference. First, a court must examine whether the 12 plaintiff’s medical needs were serious. See Id. Second, a court must determine whether 13 “officials intentionally interfered with [the plaintiff’s] medical treatment.” Id. at 1132. 14 In the original complaint, Plaintiff had not alleged any facts that satisfied either prong. 15 There were no facts alleged indicating that taking Plaintiff’s prescription eyewear was 16 intentional. Plaintiff’s own allegations indicated that they were taken for security reasons. There 17 were no facts alleged indicating that either Acosta or Zepeda knew that Plaintiff had an 18 objectively serious medical condition or that taking Plaintiff’s eyeglasses would case or 19 exacerbate serious injury. The Court therefore dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim with 20 leave to amend. 21 In the first amended complaint, Plaintiff indicates that the glasses that were taken from 22 him included “1 pair of Ray Ban, and 1 pair of PT-36 dark Rx glasses to prevent seizures.” (Am. 23 Compl. 3:20.) A simple reference to the deprivation of a medical appliance does not, of itself, 24 state a claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff was specifically advised that he 25 failed to allege facts indicating that taking Plaintiff’s eyeglasses exacerbated a serious medical 26 condition. An allegation that Defendants took Plaintiff’s glasses, without any allegations that 27 such action caused an objectively serious injury, fails to state a claim. 28 /// 3 1 C. Grievance Process 2 The only conduct charged to Sgt. Hernandez was his participation in the grievance 3 process. There is no liberty interest in a prison grievance procedure as it is a procedural right 4 only. Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 5 (8th Cir. 1993). The prison grievance process does not confer any substantive rights upon 6 inmates and actions in reviewing appeals cannot serve as a basis for liability under section 1983. 7 Buckley, 997 F.2d at 495. Plaintiff’s allegations as to Defendant Hernandez were therefore 8 dismissed with leave to amend. In the first amended complaint, Plaintiff fails to allege any 9 allegations indicating that Defendant Hernandez engaged in any other conduct. Because 10 Defendant Hernandez’s only conduct was his participation in the grievance process, he must be 11 dismissed from this action. 12 III. 13 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 14 For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s November 6, 2015, first amended complaint fails to 15 state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In the September 1, 2015 order, the Court 16 informed Plaintiff of the deficiencies in his complaint, and dismissed the complaint on the 17 ground that Plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Because 18 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint fails to cure the deficiencies identified in the order dismissing 19 the original complaint, the Court recommends dismissal of this action with prejudice for failure 20 to state a claim upon which the Court could grant relief. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 21 1127 (9th Cir. 2007)(recognizing longstanding rule that leave to amend should be granted even if 22 no request to amend was made unless the court determines that the pleading could not be cured 23 by the allegation of other facts); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987)(pro se 24 litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the 25 deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment). See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 26 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992)(dismissal with prejudice upheld where court had instructed 27 plaintiff regarding deficiencies in prior order dismissing claim with leave to amend). 28 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure 4 1 to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that this action count as a strike under 18 2 U.S.C. § 1915(g). These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 3 4 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Within thirty days 5 after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 6 with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 7 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 8 specified time may result in waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 77 F.3d 834 (9th 9 Cir. 2014)(citing Baxter v. Sullivan), 923 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: November 19, 2015 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5
]]>
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.
