(PC) Gosztyla v. Allison ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHANTELL GOSZTYLA, Case No. 1:22-cv-00763-JLT-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. (Doc. 14) 14 KATHLEEN ALLISON, 15 Defendant. 16 17 The Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations, recommending this action be 18 dismissed because Plaintiff failed to state a claim. (Doc. 14.) Plaintiff filed objections arguing the 19 Defendant did not offer any post-deprivation remedy, which were, essentially, the same 20 arguments made in her first amended complaint. (Doc. 15.) 21 Because the state of California provides Plaintiff with a post-deprivation remedy for her 22 claimed loss, Plaintiff cannot prevail on her Fifth Amendment due process claim which stems 23 from the confiscation of her JPay tablet. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); Zinermon 24 v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 129-32 (1990). As the magistrate judge informed Plaintiff in the Findings 25 and Recommendations and in the screening order, Plaintiff must pursue the return of her tablet 26 pursuant to the California Tort Claims Act. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 27 1994) (citing Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 810-895). Furthermore, Plaintiff does not have a fundamental 28 right to possess a particular tablet. See Atencio v. Allison, 2021 WL 2982917, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jul. ee IRI EINE III I IIE IIE II ISS IEE 1 15, 2021) (“Plaintiff cannot allege a fundamental right to a particular type of electronic device.”) 2 | findings and recommendation adopted by 2021 WL 4803970 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2021); Cerniglia v. 3 | Price, 2017 WL 4865452, at *2-4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2017) (finding that a civil detainee did not have 4 | aconstitutionally protected interest in his laptop which officials confiscated stating, “[n]o Court has 5 | found that prisoners have a connotational right to possess personnel computers or items that are 6 | similar to personal computers which are capable of accessing the internet in their cells.”’) (citations 7 | omitted). 8 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this 9 | case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 10 | Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court 11 | ORDERS: 12 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed on August 21, 2023 (Doc. 14), are 13 ADOPTED IN FULL. 14 2. The Clerk of Court shall terminate any pending motions, close this case, and enter 15 judgment against plaintiff. 16 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1g | Dated: _ September 7, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28