Butler v. Valdez
3:22-cv-00620
S.D. Cal.Jun 2, 2022Background:
- Plaintiff Derwin Lee Butler, a state prisoner, was at Centinela State Prison and processed through Receiving & Release on August 4, 2021.
- Officer Valdez told Butler he could take only ten books on transfer; remaining books would be boxed and shipped to Butler’s home at his expense.
- Butler contends his paralegal-course textbooks were exempt as educational materials; Valdez disagreed and the excess books were boxed for shipment.
- The boxed books never arrived at Butler’s home; Butler filed and exhausted inmate appeals, which were denied, and alleges Valdez lied during the investigation.
- Butler filed a § 1983 complaint alleging deprivation of property and moved to proceed in forma pauperis without paying the filing fee.
- The Court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, dismissed the § 1983 claim for failure to state a due process violation (finding California tort remedies adequate), denied leave to amend as futile, and denied the IFP motion as moot.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the loss of Butler’s books state a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim under § 1983? | Butler: Valdez confiscated/failed to ship textbooks, depriving Butler of property without due process | Defendant/State: Any deprivation was unauthorized; California provides an adequate post-deprivation tort remedy | Dismissed: No § 1983 claim because an adequate state post-deprivation remedy exists (Hudson/Barnett) |
| Should Butler’s Motion to Proceed IFP be granted? | Butler: Seeks IFP to proceed without prepaying filing fee | Defendant: Not contested substantively | Moot: IFP motion denied as moot because the complaint is dismissed without leave to amend |
| Should the complaint be dismissed with leave to amend? | Butler: Implicitly seeks relief via complaint/appeals | Court/Defendant: Further amendment would be futile given controlling law | Denied: Leave to amend denied as futile (court cites futility precedent) |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (due process protections for prisoners generally)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (unauthorized intentional deprivation of property is not a federal due process violation when adequate state post-deprivation remedy exists)
- Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 1994) (California tort remedy supplies adequate post-deprivation remedy; § 1983 property claim fails)
- Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443 (9th Cir.) (screening prisoner complaints under § 1915A)
- Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2014) (purpose and application of § 1915A screening)
- Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood, 759 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2014) (futility of amendment can justify denial of leave to amend)
- Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 1995) (authority on denying leave to amend for futility)