Herndon v. San Jose Behavioral Health

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 6 — 7 GERROD HERNDON, Case No. 22-cv-01020-CRB (PR) 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 v. 10 SAN JOSE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, (ECF No. 2) 11 Defendant(s). 12 Plaintiff, a former state prisoner currently at All Saints Extended Care, an assisted living 13 facility in San Rafael, California, has filed a pro se complaint for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 14 using the court’s prisoner complaint form wherein he alleges that “staff” and “administr[at]ion” at 15 San Jose Behavioral Health Hospital “stole my stuff from my room.” ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff 16 also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 which, based solely on 17 his affidavit of poverty, is GRANTED. 18 Plaintiff’s § 1983 action for damages against San Jose Behavioral Health Hospital staff and 19 administration for unlawful deprivation of property must be DISMISSED pursuant to § 1915(e)(2) 20 for failure to state a claim. First, it is well established that private entities and individuals do not act under color of state law, an essential element of a § 1983 action. See Gomez v. Toledo, 446 21 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). Purely private conduct is not actionable under § 1983. See Van Ort v. — 22 — Estate of Stanewich, 92 F.3d 831, 835 (9th Cir. 1996); Ouzts v. Maryland Nat’l Ins. Co., 505 F.2d 23 547, 550 (9th Cir. 1974). Second, it is also well established that a negligent or intentional — 24 — deprivation of property by a state actor fails to state a due process claim under § 1983 if the state — 25 — has an adequate post-deprivation remedy and California Law provides such an adequate post26 deprivation remedy for deprivations of property by state actors. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 27 ] Plaintiff appears to suggest additional unlawful deprivations of property (and other 2 || wrongdoing) by the Marin County Sheriff and the San Rafael and Novato police departments. But 3 any such additional claims of unlawful deprivation of property (or other wrongdoing) against these 4 || different (and unnamed) defendants must be brought in a separate action. See George v. Smith, — 5 — 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (unrelated claims against different defendants belong in 6 || different suits). 7 The clerk is instructed to close the case and terminate plaintiff's motion for leave to g || proceed IFP (which the court grants above) appearing on ECF as item number 2. 9 IT ISSO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: April 21, 2022 = 1] CHARLES R. BREYER ae 2 United States District Judge — 15 — — 16 — — 17 — Z 18 — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —