(PC) Young v. Voong et al, No. 1:2017cv01671 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER Directing Clerk to Assign District Judge; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this Action be DISMISSED for Failure to Stay a Cognizable Claim for Relief re 10 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Stan ley A. Boone on 1/4/2018. This case has been assigned to District Judge Anthony W. Ishii and Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone. . The new case number is 1:17-cv-01671-AWI-SAB (PC). Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due within twenty-one (21) days. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ZURI S. YOUNG, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. M. VOONG, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:17-cv-01671-SAB (PC) ORDER DIRECTING OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS ACTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF [ECF No. 10] Plaintiff Zuri S. Young is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed on January 2, 2018, in response to the Court’s December 15, 2017 screening order. 22 I. 23 SCREENING REQUIREMENT 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 legally 27 “frivolous or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[] 28 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 1 1 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 2 entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 3 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, 4 do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 5 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally 6 participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 7 2002). 8 Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally 9 construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 10 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, 11 which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named 12 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 13 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not 14 sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability” falls short of satisfying 15 the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 16 II. 17 COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS On September 6, 2016, while Plaintiff was housed at California State Prison, Corcoran, he was 18 19 called to receiving and release to pack and register his personal property. Plaintiff’s thirteen inch 20 television was working fine. An inmate worker was assisting officer Gutierrez inventory the property. 21 Gutierrez dropped Plaintiff’s television and caused the digital component to come loose. The 22 television could be fixed, but Gutierrez confiscated the television and refused to let the inmate worker 23 repair it. Plaintiff refused to sign the CDCR 1083 property inventory sheet because it did not contain the 24 25 truth and he was aware that officers were confiscating and breaking inmate property for inappropriate 26 reasons in an attempt to provoke the inmates to react with violence. 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 On October 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed a timely inmate appeal while he was housed at Mule Creek 2 State Prison. On October 18, 2016, D. Goree Jr. screened and rejected/cancelled Plaintiff’s appeal as 3 untimely claiming it was filed more than thirty days. Plaintiff contends his appeal was improperly 4 rejected as untimely. 5 Plaintiff contends he re-submitted the appeal at least four times in early 2017. On September 6 7, 2017, M. Voong responded to the appeal indicating that Plaintiff was misusing and abusing the 7 appeals process. 8 9 Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as costs of the action and reimbursement for his television. 10 II. 11 DISCUSSION 12 A. Confiscation/Destruction of Personal Property 13 The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution 14 protects Plaintiff from being deprived of property without due process of law, Wolff v. McDonnell, 15 418 U.S. 539, 5563 (1974), and Plaintiff has a protected interest in his personal property, Hansen v. 16 May, 502 F.2d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 1974). Authorized, intentional deprivations of property are 17 actionable under the Due Process Clause. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532, n.13 (1984); 18 Quick v. Jones, 754 F.2d 1521, 1524 (9th Cir. 1985). However, the Due Process Clause is not violated 19 by the random, unauthorized deprivation of property so long as the state provides an adequate post- 20 deprivation remedy. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 21 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994). Plaintiff has an adequate post-deprivation remedy under California law and 22 therefore, he may not pursue a due process claim arising out of the unlawful confiscation of his 23 personal property. Barnett, 31 F.3d at 816-17 (citing Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 810-895). 24 In this instance, Plaintiff has alleged an unauthorized deprivation of his personal and legal 25 property, and Plaintiff has an adequate post-deprivation remedy under California law and therefore, he 26 may not pursue a due process claim arising out of the unlawful confiscation of his personal property. 27 Barnett, 31 F.3d at 816-17 (citing Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 810-895). Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a 28 cognizable constitutional claim based on the confiscation and damage to his television. 3 1 B. Conspiracy 2 To state a claim for conspiracy under section 1983, Plaintiff must show the existence of an 3 agreement or a meeting of the minds to violate his constitutional rights, and an actual deprivation of 4 those constitutional rights. Avalos v. Baca, 596 F.3d 583, 592 (9th Cir. 2010); Franklin v. Fox, 312 5 F.3d 423, 441 (9th Cir. 2001). 6 Plaintiff fails to set forth any factual allegations that Defendants were acting in concert to 7 deprive him of his personal property or retaliate against him. Plaintiff’s conspiracy theory is nothing 8 more than his legal conclusion based on pure speculation. Accordingly, a bare allegation that 9 Defendants conspired to violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights does not suffice to give rise to a 10 conspiracy claim under section 1983. 11 C. Retaliation 12 “Prisoners have a First Amendment right to file grievances against prison officials and to be 13 free from retaliation for doing so.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing 14 Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009)). Also protected by the First Amendment is the 15 right to pursue civil rights litigation in federal court without retaliation. Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 16 1090, 1104 (9th Cir. 2011). “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation 17 entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an 18 inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the 19 inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a 20 legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005). 21 Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim for retaliation. Plaintiff’s personal property was 22 allegedly confiscated and damaged prior to his filing an inmate appeal and therefore the allegations are 23 simply insufficient to demonstrate his property was confiscated as a form of retaliation. To the extent 24 Plaintiff contends that he was retaliated against by Defendant Gutierrez because of a prior action filed 25 against his brother in 1997. There are simply no allegations that the actions taken by Gutierrez in 26 2016 were because of a prior lawsuit filed in 1997-almost 20 years prior to the actions alleged herein, 27 and such claim is simply not plausible. In any event, the alleged improper confiscation of Plaintiff’s 28 4 1 property occurred prior to any statement by Plaintiff that he was going to file an inmate grievance. 2 Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable retaliation claim. 3 D. Inmate Appeal Process 4 “The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects persons against deprivations of 5 life, liberty, or property; and those who seek to invoke its procedural protection must establish that one 6 of these interests is at stake.” Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005). Plaintiff does not a 7 have protected liberty interest in the processing his appeals, and therefore, he cannot pursue a claim 8 for denial of due process with respect to the handling or resolution of his appeals. Ramirez v. Galaza, 9 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988)). 10 Plaintiff seeks to impose liability against D. Goree and M. Voong based on the handling and 11 denial of inmate appeals. However, as stated above, there is no independent constitutional claim based 12 on the alleged improper handling of inmate appeals. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable 13 claim against Defendants D. Goree and M. Voong. 14 III. 15 RECOMMENDATION 16 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. Plaintiff was 17 previously notified of the applicable legal standards and the deficiencies in his pleading, and despite 18 guidance from the Court, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is largely identical to the original 19 complaint. Based upon the allegations in Plaintiff’s original and first amended complaint, the Court is 20 persuaded that Plaintiff is unable to allege any additional facts that would support a claim for a due 21 process violation or access to the court, and further amendment would be futile. See Hartmann v. 22 CDCR, 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013) (“A district court may deny leave to amend when 23 amendment would be futile.”) Based on the nature of the deficiencies at issue, the Court finds that 24 further leave to amend is not warranted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th. Cir. 2000); Noll v. 25 Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446-1449 (9th Cir. 1987). 26 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 27 1. The instant action be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief; and 28 2. The Office of the Clerk is directed to randomly assign this action to a District Judge. 5 This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 1 2 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one (21) 3 days after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file written 4 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 5 Findings and Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 6 specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838- 7 39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 8 9 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 4, 2018 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 1 2 3 IV. 4 RECOMMENDATION 5 Plaintiff was previously notified of the applicable legal standards and the deficiencies in his 6 pleading, and despite guidance from the Court, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is largely identical 7 to the original complaint. 8 complaint, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff is unable to allege any additional facts that would 9 support a claim for cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and further 10 amendment would be futile. See Hartmann v. CDCR, 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013) (“A district 11 court may not deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile.”) Based on the nature of the 12 deficiencies at issue, the Court finds that further leave to amend is not warranted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 13 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th. Cir. 2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446-1449 (9th Cir. 1987). Based upon the allegations in Plaintiff’s original and first amended 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7
]]>
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.
