Opinion
Case No.: 1:17-cv-00980-BAM (PC)
02-11-2018
CLARENCE L. ROBERSON, Plaintiff, v. DR. PY NGUYEN, Defendant.
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
(ECF No. 1)
FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Clarence L. Roberson ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner, proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's complaint, filed on July 24, 2017, is currently before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 1.)
I. Screening Requirement and Standard
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, courts "are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences." Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
To survive screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
II. Plaintiff's Allegations
Plaintiff is currently housed at the California Health Care Facility in Stockton, California. The complaint's allegations concern events that transpired while he was housed at CSP-Corcoran. Plaintiff names Dr. Py Nuygen as the sole defendant. Plaintiff forwards a property claim and alleges as follows: "Psychogist Nuygen delibertly requested to review my personal art and personal written book's and decided to steal one of my completed books and a art drawing that was for my daughter." (ECF No. 1 at p. 3) (unedited text). Plaintiff contends that he was psychologically affected because he never thought she would do that, and requests monetary damages in the amount of $50,000. (Id. at pp. 3, 6.)
III. Discussion
A. Deprivation of Property
Plaintiff complains that his personal property was stolen by Defendant Nuygen. While an authorized, intentional deprivation of property is actionable under the Due Process Clause, neither a negligent nor intentional unauthorized deprivation of property by a prison official is actionable if a meaningful post-deprivation remedy is available for the loss. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); Quick v. Jones, 754 F.2d 1521, 1524 (9th Cir. 1984).
As Plaintiff alleges that his personal property was stolen by defendant, this is an unauthorized, intentional deprivation. Due Process is therefore satisfied if there is a meaningful post-deprivation remedy available to him. Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533. Plaintiff has an adequate post-deprivation remedy available under California law. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Cal. Gov't Code §§ 810-895). Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim for the alleged deprivation of his personal property. This deficiency cannot be cured by amendment.
B. State Law Claims
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), in any civil action in which the district court has original jurisdiction, the district court "shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III," except as provided in subsections (b) and (c). The Supreme Court has cautioned that "if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, . . . the state claims should be dismissed as well." United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). Although the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
In this instance, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable federal claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Liberally construing allegations in the complaint, Plaintiff may be able to pursue a state law claim. However, as Plaintiff has failed to state any cognizable federal claims in this action, it is recommended that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law causes of action, and that Plaintiff's state law claims be dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
IV. Conclusion and Recommendation
Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. The deficiencies of Plaintiff's complaint cannot be cured be amendment, and thus leave to amend is not warranted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a district judge to this action.
Further, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's federal claims be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A and that Plaintiff's state law claims be dismissed without prejudice.
These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the "right to challenge the magistrate's factual findings" on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 11 , 2018
/s/ Barbara A . McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE