(PC) Lake v. Weiss ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN LAKE, No. 2:19-cv-2083 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 J. WEISS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. On October 31, 2019, plaintiff’s 18 complaint raising multiple unrelated and improperly-joined claims was dismissed and plaintiff 19 was granted leave to file an amended complaint. On December 17, 2019, plaintiff was granted 20 sixty days in which to file an amended complaint that complies with the October 31, 2019 order. 21 On January 3, 2020, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Petition for Writ of Replevin.” 22 (ECF No. 14.) In his petition, filed on a state court form, plaintiff appears to raise claims of lost 23 and destroyed personal property and seeks monetary and injunctive relief under California Penal 24 Code §§ 1258, 1259, and 1536. 25 However, as plaintiff was previously informed in the court’s screening order, the United 26 States Supreme Court has held that “an unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state 27 employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process 28 Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is 1 available.” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). The negligent or intentional 2 deprivation of property fails to state a cognizable due process claim under section 1983 if the 3 deprivation was random and unauthorized. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535-44 (1981) (state 4 employee negligently lost prisoner’s hobby kit), overruled in part on other grounds, Daniels v. 5 Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31 (1986); Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533 (intentional destruction of 6 inmate’s property). The availability of an adequate state post-deprivation remedy, e.g. a state tort 7 action, precludes relief because it provides prisoners with sufficient procedural due process. See 8 Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 128 (1990) (where state cannot foresee, and therefore provide 9 meaningful hearing prior to the deprivation, a statutory provision for post-deprivation hearing or a 10 state common law tort remedy for erroneous deprivation satisfies due process); King v. 11 Massarweh, 782 F.2d 825, 826 (9th Cir. 1986) (same). The Ninth Circuit has long recognized 12 that California law provides such an adequate post-deprivation remedy. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 13 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 810-895). 14 Deprivations of property resulting from negligence, or “mere lack of due care” do not 15 deny due process at all, and must be redressed through a state court damages action. See Daniels, 16 474 U.S. at 328 (“[T]he Due Process Clause is simply not implicated by a negligent act of an 17 official causing unintended loss of or injury to life, liberty, or property.”); Daniels, 474 U.S. at 18 330 (“‘To hold that this kind of loss is a deprivation of property within the meaning of the 19 Fourteenth Amendment seems not only to trivialize, but grossly to distort the meaning and intent 20 of the Constitution.’” (quoting Parratt, 451 U.S. at 545 (Stewart, J., concurring)). In fact, the 21 Supreme Court has explicitly warned against turning the Fourteenth Amendment and § 1983 into 22 a “font of tort law to be superimposed upon whatever systems may already be administered by the 23 States.” See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 701 (1976) (“the procedural guarantees of the Due 24 Process Clause cannot be the source for [tort] law.”) 25 Because plaintiff contends he was deprived of personal property, any remedy he may have 26 lies in state court, not federal court. In other words, plaintiff must seek redress through the 27 California courts. Based on such binding authorities, and the fact that plaintiff was previously 28 advised that he could not pursue such property claims in federal court, the court concludes that 1 the petition for writ of replevin was improperly filed in this court. Therefore, the undersigned 2 declines to construe such filing as plaintiff’s amended civil rights complaint because it does not 3 comply with the October 31, 2019 order, and the petition is disregarded. Plaintiff is granted an 4 extension of time to file an amended complaint that complies with the court’s October 31, 2019 5 order. 6 In addition, plaintiff appended a copy of the court’s last order on which plaintiff 7 complains that the January 3, 2010 order contained “no teeth,” apparently because the court did 8 not order the litigation coordinator or the supervising deputy attorney general to meet with 9 plaintiff by a date certain. However, because there is no operative complaint on file, the court has 10 no jurisdiction to issue such an order at this time. Moreover, it appears that plaintiff has now 11 received at least some of his property. 12 Importantly, because plaintiff has not yet identified the specific claims he intends to 13 pursue in this action, it is unclear whether plaintiff needs any of his personal property in order to 14 file a proper pleading in this case.1 Prisoners are not required to cite legal authority, including 15 cases or statutes, in the initial pleading. Rather, plaintiff is only required to name and sufficiently 16 identify each defendant, identify the federal cause of action or constitutional violation and set 17 forth the facts that demonstrate his constitutional rights were violated by each named defendant. 18 Indeed, the court provides state prisoners with a civil rights complaint form which plaintiff may 19 use to identify his claims and articulate the facts supporting such claims in a concise fashion. The 20 court will direct the Clerk of Court to provide plaintiff with a copy of his initial complaint filed in 21 this action should the pleading assist plaintiff in filing his amended complaint. Due to the 22 difficulties plaintiff has recently experienced, plaintiff is granted sixty days in which to file the 23 amended complaint. 24 //// 25 //// 26 1 In addition, it is unclear whether any particular document he may need was destroyed by water 27 damage and therefore may be unattainable in any event. Nevertheless, plaintiff is not required to submit exhibits at the pleading stage. Plaintiff need only assert the factual basis for each claim. 28 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The improperly-filed petition for writ of replevin (ECF No. 14) is disregarded; 3 2. Plaintiff is granted sixty days from the date of this order in which to file an amended 4 | complaint that complies with the October 31, 2019 order; and 5 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of his original complaint 6 | (ECF No. 1), as well as the form for filing a civil rights complaint by a prisoner. 7 | Dated: January 13, 2020 Fens Arn 9 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 take2083.26r 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28