(PC) Robles v. Flores ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARTHUR ROBLES, Case No. 1:20-cv-00355-NONE-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY 13 v. (Doc. No. 13) 14 A. FLORES, Correctional Officer at Kern ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO Valley State Prison and M. ORTIZ, 15 Correctional Officer at Kern Valley State TERMINATE PENDING MOTION Prison, 16 (Doc. No. 8) Defendants. 17 18 This matter comes before the court upon initial review of the file following its 19 reassignment to the undersigned on November 17, 2020. (Doc. No. 19). Plaintiff Arthur Flores is 20 a state prisoner proceeding pro se on his civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 21 (Doc. Nos. 1, 5). The former magistrate judge permitted service of the complaint on defendants 22 for allegedly violating Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights when they failed to protect Plaintiff 23 from an attempted suicide and for violating Plaintiff’s Fifth and Fourteenth amendment rights 24 when they confiscated and refused to return Plaintiff’s personal property. (Doc. No. 9). Plaintiff 25 seeks only monetary relief in his complaint. (See Doc. No. 1 at 5). 26 Plaintiff moved on July 17, 2020, and again on September 30, 2020, for return of personal 27 property that apparently was confiscated following his suicide attempt and not yet returned to him 28 1 since his release from the hospital. (Doc. Nos. 8, 13). Plaintiff’s July 17, 2020 filing (Doc. No. 2 8) was written as a letter addressed to Clerk of Court Keith Holland. Under the Federal Rules of 3 Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules, all requests for a court order must be made by 4 motion and served on all parties to the action. See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5(a)(1)(D), 5 7(b)(1); Local Rule 135(d). The July 17, 2020 filing should not have been docketed as motion. 6 The Court nonetheless will decline to strike Plaintiff’s July 17, 2020 filing and instead will direct 7 the Clerk to terminate it as a pending motion considering Plaintiff’s subsequent motion (Doc. No. 8 13) seeking the same relief. 9 To the extent discernable, Plaintiff complains that his personal property which was taken 10 by officials when he attempted suicide has not been returned to him despite his efforts to obtain 11 the same through the procedures instituted by the prison. (See generally Id.). The personal items 12 of which Plaintiff complains, include personal photographs, religious items, clothing, cosmetics 13 and legal books, inter alia. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff suggests that the refusal to return the items is being 14 done in retaliation for his filing grievances and the instant complaint stemming from defendants’ 15 failure to provide him medical care to prevent his suicide. (Id at 1, 3). Defendants have not filed 16 a response to the motion. 17 To the extent, Plaintiff requires his legal materials to prosecute this case, he should notify 18 officials of his need to access his legal materials. The Court notes that this case is at the 19 discovery stage and, if Plaintiff’s inability to access his legal materials is hindering his discovery 20 efforts, Plaintiff may seek an extension to the discovery deadline, if appropriate. To the extent 21 that Plaintiff believes officials are refusing to return his personal property in retaliation for the 22 instant action, Plaintiff is required to initiate a new complaint if he wishes to proceed on a First 23 Amendment retaliation claim, after he has exhausted his administrative remedies for this new 24 claim. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567 (9th Cir. 2005). Alternatively, if Plaintiff 25 seeks preliminary injunctive relief, he is required to file a properly supported motion. The Court 26 notes, however, Plaintiff sought only monetary relief in connection with his personal property that 27 was destroyed. Plaintiff should nonetheless be aware that when a prisoner alleges a prison 28 official engaged in an “unauthorized intentional deprivation of property,” the prisoner cannot 1 | state a constitutional claim if the state provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. Hudson vy. 2 | Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 129-32 (1990). In 3 | California, prisoners seeking return of property can pursue their return pursuant to the California 4 | Tort Claims Act. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Cal. Gov't Code 5 | §§ 810-895). Plaintiff therefore may wish to pursue his personal property claim through the post- 6 | deprivation remedies provided under California law. 7 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 8 1. Plaintiff's motion for return of property (Doc. Nos.13) is DENIED. 9 2. The Clerk of Court shall terminate Plaintiff’s pending motion requesting the same 10 | relief (Doc. No. 8). 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: — June 9, 2021 Mile. Wh fareh Zaskth 14 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28