(PC) Gaskins v. Mule Creek State Prison ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH GASKINS, Case No. 2:22-cv-00459-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER THAT THE CLERK OF COURT ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS 13 v. ACTION 14 MULE CREEK STATE PRISON, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED 15 Defendant. COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED 16 ECF No. 20 17 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 18 19 20 21 As in his prior two complaints, plaintiff alleges that he was transferred between prisons 22 without his personal property. ECF No. 20 at 3. As explained in my prior screening orders, Mule 23 Creek State Prison is not a proper defendant, and this is not cognizable claim. Accordingly, I 24 recommend that this action be dismissed. 25 Screening and Pleading Requirements 26 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 27 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 28 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, that fails to state a 1 claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 2 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 3 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 5 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 6 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 7 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 8 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 9 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 10 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 11 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 12 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 13 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 14 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 15 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 16 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 17 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 18 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 19 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 20 Analysis 21 Plaintiff alleges that he was transferred from Mule Creek State Prison to Coalinga State 22 Hospital without one box of his personal property. ECF No. 20 at 3, 6. As indicated in my prior 23 orders, a claim under § 1983 for deprivation of property does not arise “unless and until the State 24 fails to provide” an adequate process to remedy the claimed deprivation of property, see 25 Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 125-26 (1990), and California law provides for such process, 26 see Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994). Additionally, plaintiff continues to 27 name Mule Creek State Prison as the only defendant; I have instructed him previously that Mule 28 Creek is not a viable defendant in a § 1983 action. See Allison v. California Adult Auth., 419 F.2d 1 | 822, 823 (th Cir. 1969). 2 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge 3 | to this action. 4 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without leave to amend. 5 I submit these findings and recommendations to the district judge under 28 U.S.C. 6 | § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, 7 | Eastern District of California. Within 14 days of the service of the findings and 8 || recommendations, any party may file written objections to the findings and recommendations 9 | with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document should be captioned “Objections to 10 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will review the findings 11 and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the 12 | specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. See Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 13 | 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). 14 1s IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 | q Sty — Dated: _ December 16, 2022 17 JEREMY D. PETERSON 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28