Ballardo

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 KAHLIL A. BYERS, Case No. 1:25-v-01691-BAM (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING JUNE 1, 2026

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

13 v. (ECF No. 12)

14 BALLARDO, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS ACTION

15 Defendants.

(ECF No. 13)

16

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

17

18 I. Background

19 Plaintiff Kahlil A. Byers (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

20 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was transferred to

21 this Court on December 1, 2025. (ECF No. 4.)

22 On April 22, 2026, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that it failed to

23 comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and failed to state a cognizable claim for relief.

24 (ECF No. 10.) The Court issued an order granting Plaintiff leave to file a first amended

25 complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal within 30 days. (Id.) On June 1, 2026, after Plaintiff

26 failed to respond to the Court’s order, the Court issued findings and recommendations that this

27 action be dismissed. (ECF No. 12.) The Court directed that any objections to the findings and

28 recommendations be filed within 14 days. (Id.)

1 On June 18, 2026, in lieu of filing objections, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.

2 (ECF No. 13.) Based on Plaintiff’s filing, the Court finds it appropriate to vacate the June 1,

3 2026 findings and recommendations. The Court further finds it appropriate to screen the first

4 amended complaint, (ECF No. 13), and issue new findings and recommendations that this action

5 be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted.

6 II. Screening Requirement and Standard

7 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

8 governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

9 § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous

10 or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary

11 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b).

12 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

13 pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not

14 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

15 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell

16 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as

17 true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,

18 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

19 To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires

20 sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable

21 for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret

22 Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully

23 is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility

24 standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

25 III. Plaintiff’s Allegations

26 Plaintiff is currently housed at Mule Creek State Prison. The events in the amended

27 complaint are alleged to have occurred while Plaintiff was housed at Kern Valley State Prison

28 (“KVSP”). Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) Salomon Olvera Correctional Officer;

1 (2) Jamill Vieth, Correctional Officer; (3) Francisco Ballardo, Correctional Officer; and (4) Cole

2 Johnson, Correctional Officer. Plaintiff asserts the “[r]ight to due process” and “[r]ight to be

3 secure in papers, and effects from any damages, lost or stolen.” (ECF No. 13 at 3.)

4 Plaintiff alleges he arrived at KVSP on April 26, 2025, with a total of 5 maximum weight

5 and length property boxes. On April 27, 2025, at approximately 7:00 a.m., he was escorted to the

6 D yard program office holding cages, where it was deemed through confidential information that

7 Plaintiff’s life would be in danger if he were to remain on D yard and the same threat would

8 follow him to facility C yard. Plaintiff thus would be placed in the Restricted Housing Unit

9 (RHU). Defendant Olvera inventoried all of Plaintiff’s personal belongings while Plaintiff

10 awaited his transport to RHU. Not once after Defendant inventoried Plaintiff’s belongings and

11 placed them inside the facility D property room did Plaintiff have all five boxes or possess all of

12 his belongings per RHU rules.

13 On April 27, 2025, at approximately 13:21:48 pm, Defendant Vieth adjusted the same

14 inventory list. Not once after Defendant’s adjustment, or Defendant Olvera’s inventory, was

15 Plaintiff allowed to see or possess all five boxes of his belongings that were then placed inside the

16 facility C property room per RHU rules.

17 On May 29, 2025, at approximately 19:11:47, after refusing to return to general

18 population, Defendant Ballardo duplicated the property list of the above two defendants, placed

19 all of Plaintiff’s belongings inside nine different boxes (even though Plaintiff only arrived at

20 KVSP with five boxes of property), and placed the boxes inside the facility C/RHU property

21 room. Plaintiff was no longer allowed to see or possess nine boxes of property per RHU rules.

22 On June 21, 2025, from approximately11:55:26 to 12:36:11, Defendant Johnson

23 inventoried the belongings inside Plaintiff’s cell to return them with the property that should have

24 been inside the labeled nine boxes Kahlil Byers BK 4361. Defendant made errors in the process,

25 as the log he inventoried and signed and the final copy, both submitted to the Court, do not match.

26 The final copy given to Plaintiff upon arriving at Mule Creek State Prison, the recipient of three

27 boxes, was Plaintiff. From April 2025 until Plaintiff’s transfer to Mule Creek State Prison on

28 July 17, 2025, Plaintiff was assigned placement to cell E-155, inside the RHU at KVSP, with

1 limited access to his personal belongings and with complete supervision of anything coming out

2 or going inside the cell. As submitted to the courts by Plaintiff, the signed document shows that

3 each defendant has taken responsibility for handling and inventory of Plaintiff’s property. As of

4 Plaintiff’s departure from KVSP and his arrival at Mule Creek State Prison, CCTV footage

5 clearly showed Plaintiff having three boxes labelled with the name Kahlil Byers CDCR number

6 BK 4361.

7 Plaintiff alleges that defendants are responsible for all of his lost property and shall be

8 held accountable. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants admitted to the loss of his property on

9 CCTV and body camera audio, but omitted it all from the signed document of his inventoried

10 property.

11 As relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.

12 IV. Discussion

13 A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

14 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain “a short and plain

15 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Detailed

16 factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,

17 supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation

18 omitted). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to

19 relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570,

20 127 S.Ct. at 1974). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.;

21 see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–557.

22 Plaintiff’s complaint is short, but it is not a plain statement of his claims. Plaintiff’s

23 allegations are disjointed, and his amended complaint does not clearly state what happened, when

24 it happened, and who was involved. Plaintiff’s conclusory statements are not sufficient to state a

25 cognizable claim for relief.

26 B. Fourteenth Amendment – Deprivation of Property

27 Prisoners have a protected interest in their personal property. Hansen v. May, 502 F.2d

28 728, 730 (9th Cir. 1974). An authorized, intentional deprivation of property is actionable under

1 the Due Process Clause. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532 n.13 (1984) (citing Logan v.

2 Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 435–36 (1982)); Quick v. Jones, 754 F.2d 1521, 1524 (9th

3 Cir. 1985). However, “an unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee

4 does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause of the

5 Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available.”

6 Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533.

7 Plaintiff complains that defendants are responsible for the loss/deprivation of his personal

8 property in violation of prison rules. As alleged, this conduct is an unauthorized deprivation of

9 property, due process is satisfied if there is a meaningful post-deprivation remedy available to

10 Plaintiff. Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533. Plaintiff has an adequate post-deprivation remedy available

11 under California law. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816–17 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Cal. Gov’t

12 Code §§ 810–95). Therefore, Plaintiff fails to allege a cognizable due process claim for the

13 alleged deprivation of his property.

14 C. Violation of Prison Rules and Policies

15 To the extent Defendants are alleged to have failed to comply with applicable prison

16 regulations, rules, or policies, these deprivations do not support a claim under § 1983. Section

17 1983 only provides a cause of action for the deprivation of federally protected rights. See, e.g.,

18 Nible v. Fink, 828 F. App’x 463 (9th Cir. 2020) (violations of Title 15 of the California Code of

19 Regulations do not create private right of action); Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th

20 Cir. 2009) (explaining all section 1983 claims must be premised on violation of federal

21 constitutional right); Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining state

22 departmental regulations, like CDCR operations manual, do not establish a federal constitutional

23 violation); Prock v. Warden, No. 1:13-cv-01572-MJS (PC), 2013 WL 5553349, at *4 (E.D. Cal.

24 Oct. 8, 2013) (noting that several district courts have found no implied private right of action

25 under title 15 and stating that “no § 1983 claim arises for [violations of title 15] even if they

26 occurred.”); Parra v. Hernandez, No. 08cv0191-H (CAB), 2009 WL 3818376, at *3 (S.D. Cal.

27 Nov. 13, 2009) (granting motion to dismiss prisoner’s claims brought pursuant to Title 15 of the

28 California Code of Regulations); Chappell v. Newbarth, No. 1:06-cv-01378-OWW-WMW (PC),

1 2009 WL 1211372, at *9 (E.D. Cal. May 1, 2009) (holding that there is no private right of action

2 under Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations).

3 V. Conclusion and Recommendation

4 Based on the above, the findings and recommendations issued on June 1, 2026, (ECF No.

5 12), are HEREBY VACATED.

6 Additionally, Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil

7 Procedure 8 and fails to state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Despite being provided

8 with the relevant pleading and legal standards, Plaintiff has been unable to cure the deficiencies.

9 Further leave to amend is not warranted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).

10 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to

11 state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted.

12 These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge

13 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen

14 (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written

15 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

16 Findings and Recommendation.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages or

17 include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page number if already in

18 the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limit may not be

19 considered. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result

20 in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v.

21 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394

22 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

24 Dated: June 24, 2026 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25

26

27

28