(PC) Black v. Hanzak ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BOBBY L. BLACK, Case No. 1:19-cv-00238-AWI-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING 13 v. ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR 14 J. HANZAK, et al., RELIEF 15 Defendants. (ECF Nos. 1, 9) 16 17 Plaintiff Bobby L. Black is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On June 5, 2019, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that this action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim upon 22 which relief may be granted. (ECF No. 9.) The findings and recommendations were served on 23 Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days 24 after service. (Id. at 6-7.) Plaintiff timely filed objections to the findings and recommendations on 25 July 8, 2019. (ECF No. 10.) 26 In his objections, Plaintiff contends that he has alleged a cognizable claim for deprivation 27 of personal property in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment against Defendant Correctional 28 Officer J. Willis because the allegations in his complaint establish that Defendant Willis personally 1 | participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff's property rights without first providing due process of 2 | law. However, while an authorized intentional deprivation of property is actionable under the Due 3 | Process Clause, an unauthorized intentional or negligent deprivation of property does not constitute 4 | a violation of the procedural component of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment 5 | so long as the state provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 6 | 517, 532-33 (1984); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994). Here, since □□□□□□□□□□□ 7 | allegations only establish an unauthorized deprivation of his personal property and Plaintiff has an 8 || adequate post-deprivation remedy under California law, Plaintiff has failed to allege a cognizable 9 | due process claim for the unauthorized deprivation of his personal property against Defendant 10 | Willis. Barnett, 31 F.3d at 816-17 (citing Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 810-895). Therefore, □□□□□□□□□□□ 11 || objections are overruled. 12 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 13 || de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including □□□□□□□□□□□ 14 | objections, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations are 15 | supported by the record and by proper analysis. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 5, 2019, (ECF No. 9), are adopted 18 in full; 19 2. This action is dismissed, with prejudice, due to Plaintiff's failure to state a claim 20 upon which relief may be granted; and 21 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 ON LES ~_-SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28