‘Futility of amendment can, by itself, justify the 6 denial of .. . leave to amend.’”
How later courts described this case
- ‘Futility of amendment can, by itself, justify the 6 denial of .. . leave to amend.’”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 DERWIN LEE BUTLER, Case No.: 22-cv-620-MMA (AHG)
CDCR #AC-9987,
12
ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL
Plaintiff,
13 ACTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.
v. § 1915A AND DENYING MOTION
14
TO PROCEED IN FORMA
VALDEZ, Receiving and Release C/O,
15 PAUPERIS AS MOOT
Centinela State Prison,
16 Defendant.
[Doc. No. 2]
17
18
19 Derwin Lee Butler (“Plaintiff” or “Butler”), a state inmate currently incarcerated at
20 the Correctional Training Facility (“CTF”) located in Soledad, California and proceeding
21 pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Doc. No. 1
22 (“Compl.”). Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) to
23 commence a civil action when he filed his Complaint; instead, he has filed a Motion to
24 Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Doc. No. 2.
25 I. SUA SPONTE SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)
26 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, obligates the
27 Court to review complaints filed by anyone “incarcerated or detained in any facility who
28 is accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or
1 the terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,”
2 “as soon as practicable after docketing” and regardless of whether the prisoner prepays
3 filing fees or moves to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). Pursuant to this
4 provision of the PLRA, the Court is required to review prisoner complaints which “seek[]
5 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a government entity,” and to
6 dismiss those, or any portion of those, which are “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a
7 claim upon which relief may be granted,” or which “seek monetary relief from a
8 defendant who is immune.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d
9 443, 446–47 (9th Cir. 2000); Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011).
10 “The purpose of § 1915A is ‘to ensure that the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need
11 not bear the expense of responding.’” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 920 n.1 (9th
12 Cir. 2014) (quoting Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 681 (7th Cir.
13 2012)).
14 A. Plaintiff’s Factual Allegations
15 Butler was incarcerated at Centinela State Prison (“CSP”) on August 4, 2021.
16 Compl. at 4. He was “taken to the prison’s receiving and release office in order to pack
17 [his] property for transfer.” Id. Butler states he had more than the maximum number of
18 books allowed, and defendant Valdez told him he would have to pick ten books to take
19 with him and the rest would be shipped to his home at his expense. Id. Butler claims he
20 told Valdez that his textbooks related to the paralegal correspondence course he was
21 taking were exempt from the ten-book maximum because they were fore his “ongoing
22 education,” but Valdez disagreed. Id. The books Butler could not take with him during
23 his transfer were put in a box for shipping. Id. at 4–5. According to Butler, Valdez told
24 him “he would write the name of the books on [a] list, make a photocopy and provide
25 [him] with that copy before [he] transferred to the next prison.” Id. at 5.
26 Butler’s books have not arrived at his home. Id. He filed an inmate appeal about
27 his books, which was denied at every level. Id. Butler claims Valdez has lied during the
28 investigation and said he never confiscated Butler’s books. Id.
1 B. Discussion
2 Butler’s sole claim is that he was deprived of his property. The Due Process
3 Clause protects against deprivations of property without due process of law. Wolff
4 v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). The United States Supreme Court has also
5 held, however, that “an unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state
6 employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due
7 Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful post-deprivation remedy
8 for the loss is available.” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). California’s tort
9 claim process provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d
10 813, 816–17 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (“[A] negligent or intentional deprivation of a
11 prisoner's property fails to state a claim under section 1983 if the state has an adequate
12 post deprivation remedy.”); see also Teahan v. Wilhelm, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 1120
13 (S.D. Cal. 2007). Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot state a due process claim premised on the
14 deprivation of property and therefore the Court dismisses his claims without leave to
15 amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1).
16 II. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
17 Butler has not paid the civil filing fee associated with this Complaint but he has
18 submitted a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. See Doc. No. 2. Because the Court is
19 dismissing this case without leave to amend, the Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is
20 moot.
21
22
23 * * *
24
25
26
27
28
1 IIT. CONCLUSION
2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint for failure
3 state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) without leave to amend because the
4 || Court finds further amendment would be futile. See Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood,
5 F.3d 1112, 1116 (9th Cir. 2014) (‘Futility of amendment can, by itself, justify the
6 denial of .. . leave to amend.’”) (quoting Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir.
7 |{1995)). The Court further DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP as moot and
8 || DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close this case.
9 IT IS SO ORDERED.
10 || Dated: June 1, 2022
Wide UM - (ikl
12 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO
13 United States District Judge
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28