(PC) Kendrix v. Sacramento Main Jail ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCUS ANTHONY KENDRIX, No. 2:22-cv-1502 KJM AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SACRAMENTO MAIN JAIL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On November 29, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff has filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 7. 24 In those objections, plaintiff argues his constitutional rights were violated by deputies’ 25 intentional and wrongful deprivation of his property. See id. at 2. This court assumes the truth of 26 plaintiff’s allegations, see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), but as the magistrate judge 27 explained, even an “intentional deprivation of a prisoner’s property fails to state a claim under 28 section 1983 if the state has an adequate post deprivation remedy,” Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 1 | 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Hudson vy. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984)). The Ninth Circuit 2 || has held California law provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for any property 3 || deprivation. See id. (citing Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 810-895). As a result, because plaintiff has an 4 | adequate remedy under California law, he cannot maintain this § 1983 action. 5 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 6 || court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the 7 || findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 29, 2022 (ECF No. 5), are adopted 10 | in full; 11 2. The complaint is dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a claim; and 12 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 13 | DATED: January 23, 2023. 14 6 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28