Opinion
1:20-cv-00355-NONE-HBK
06-09-2021
ARTHUR ROBLES, Plaintiff, v. A. FLORES, Correctional Officer at Kern Valley State Prison and M. ORTIZ, Correctional Officer at Kern Valley State Prison, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY (DOC. NO. 13)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO TERMINATE PENDING MOTION (DOC. NO. 8)
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter comes before the court upon initial review of the file following its reassignment to the undersigned on November 17, 2020. (Doc. No. 19). Plaintiff Arthur Flores is a state prisoner proceeding pro se on his civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. Nos. 1, 5). The former magistrate judge permitted service of the complaint on defendants for allegedly violating Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights when they failed to protect Plaintiff from an attempted suicide and for violating Plaintiff's Fifth and Fourteenth amendment rights when they confiscated and refused to return Plaintiff's personal property. (Doc. No. 9). Plaintiff seeks only monetary relief in his complaint. (See Doc. No. 1 at 5).
Plaintiff moved on July 17, 2020, and again on September 30, 2020, for return of personal property that apparently was confiscated following his suicide attempt and not yet returned to him since his release from the hospital. (Doc. Nos. 8, 13). Plaintiff's July 17, 2020 filing (Doc. No. 8) was written as a letter addressed to Clerk of Court Keith Holland. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's Local Rules, all requests for a court order must be made by motion and served on all parties to the action. See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5(a)(1)(D), 7(b)(1); Local Rule 135(d). The July 17, 2020 filing should not have been docketed as motion. The Court nonetheless will decline to strike Plaintiff's July 17, 2020 filing and instead will direct the Clerk to terminate it as a pending motion considering Plaintiff's subsequent motion (Doc. No. 13) seeking the same relief.
To the extent discernable, Plaintiff complains that his personal property which was taken by officials when he attempted suicide has not been returned to him despite his efforts to obtain the same through the procedures instituted by the prison. (See generally Id.). The personal items of which Plaintiff complains, include personal photographs, religious items, clothing, cosmetics and legal books, inter alia. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff suggests that the refusal to return the items is being done in retaliation for his filing grievances and the instant complaint stemming from defendants' failure to provide him medical care to prevent his suicide. (Id. at 1, 3). Defendants have not filed a response to the motion.
To the extent, Plaintiff requires his legal materials to prosecute this case, he should notify officials of his need to access his legal materials. The Court notes that this case is at the discovery stage and, if Plaintiff's inability to access his legal materials is hindering his discovery efforts, Plaintiff may seek an extension to the discovery deadline, if appropriate. To the extent that Plaintiff believes officials are refusing to return his personal property in retaliation for the instant action, Plaintiff is required to initiate a new complaint if he wishes to proceed on a First Amendment retaliation claim, after he has exhausted his administrative remedies for this new claim. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567 (9th Cir. 2005). Alternatively, if Plaintiff seeks preliminary injunctive relief, he is required to file a properly supported motion. The Court notes, however, Plaintiff sought only monetary relief in connection with his personal property that was destroyed. Plaintiff should nonetheless be aware that when a prisoner alleges a prison official engaged in an “unauthorized intentional deprivation of property, ” the prisoner cannot state a constitutional claim if the state provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 129-32 (1990). In California, prisoners seeking return of property can pursue their return pursuant to the California Tort Claims Act. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Cal. Gov't Code §§ 810-895). Plaintiff therefore may wish to pursue his personal property claim through the post-deprivation remedies provided under California law.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff s motion for return of property (Doc. Nos. 13) is DENIED.
2. The Clerk of Court shall terminate Plaintiff s pending motion requesting the same relief (Doc. No. 8).
IT IS SO ORDERED.