1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JEFFREY WADE PATTERSON, Case No. 20-07160 EJD (PR) 11 Plaintiff,

12 ORDER OF DISMISSAL v.

13

14 SANTA CLARA COUNTY SET, et al.,

15 Defendants.

16

17 18 Plaintiff, who is currently detained at the Santa Clara County Jail, filed the instant 19 pro se civil rights action pursuant to

against the Santa Clara Police 20 Department for loss of property. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in 21 forma pauperis will be addressed in a separate order. 22 23 DISCUSSION 24 A. Standard of Review 25 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 26 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 27 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 1 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 2 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 3 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 4 construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,

(9th Cir. 1988). 5 To state a claim under

, a plaintiff must allege two essential 6 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 7 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 8 color of state law. See West v. Atkins,

(1988). 9 B. Plaintiff’s Claims 10 Plaintiff claims that on September 26, 2019, Defendants broke down the home of 11 his residence in order to execute of a felony search warrant. Dkt. No. 1 at 3. Plaintiff 12 claims he was not shown the search warrant when he asked for it.

Plaintiff seeks to 13 recover $35,000 from Defendants to compensate for the loss of personal property that was 14 stolen by burglars and squatters “as a result of police breaking in doors [and] disabling 15 alarm and cameras and locks.”

16 Plaintiff fails to state a claim because his allegations, even liberally construed, fails 17 to satisfy the first element for a section 1983 claim, i.e., that a right secured by the 18 Constitution or federal law was violated. See West v. Atkins,

. Plaintiff 19 does not allege that Defendants themselves seized the property, which would implicate due 20 process. Rather, he admits that the property was stolen by unidentified private individuals. 21 At best, Defendants may have acted negligently in failing to secure the area after executing 22 their warrant, but such actions amount to nothing more than tortious conduct which is 23 actionable under state law, not section 1983. There being no independent basis for federal 24 jurisdiction, Plaintiff must pursue this claim in state court. 25 /// 26 /// 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim 3 || for relief. Plaintiff must pursue the claims herein in state court. 4 The Clerk shall close the file. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 2/11/2021 6 EDWARD J. DAVILA 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 1] 12

2B 14

16

oid

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PRO-SEXEIDCR 20007 160Patterson_dism(ftsac) 26 27