Opinion
No. C 12-2871 PJH (PR)
07-24-2012
MANUEL LAVELLE BODY, Plaintiff, v. M PHILLIPS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
B. Legal Claims
Plaintiff contends that the defendant correctional officer lost his flat-screen television when his property was stored.
Neither the negligent nor intentional deprivation of property states a due process claim under § 1983 if the deprivation was random and unauthorized. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535-44 (1981) (state employee negligently lost prisoner's hobby kit), overruled in part on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31 (1986); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (intentional destruction of inmate's property). The availability of an adequate state post-deprivation remedy, e.g. a state tort action, precludes relief because it provides adequate procedural due process. King v. Massarweh, 782 F.2d 825, 826 (9th Cir. 1986). California law provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for any property deprivations. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Cal. Gov't Code §§ 810-895). Nor is a prisoner protected by the Fourth Amendment against the seizure, destruction or conversion of his property. Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F.2d 803, 806 (9th Cir. 1989).
Plaintiff's allegations involve a random and unauthorized deprivation of property not cognizable under section 1983, so must be dismissed.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set out above, the complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. The clerk shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge