1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Jose Israel SANCHEZ, Case No.: 3:24-cv-0770-AGS-AHG CDCR #BC0031, 4 ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED Plaintiff, 5 COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE v. TO AMEND 6

7 DOE, 8 Defendant. 9 10

11 BACKGROUND 12 Plaintiff Josue Israel Sanchez, a self-represented inmate, is proceeding with a civil 13 action under

. The Court dismissed Sanchez’s initial complaint for failure 14 to state a claim but granted him leave to amend. (ECF 4.) He has now filed an amended 15 complaint in which he again alleges his right to access of courts and due process were 16 violated when “legal paperwork” was “lost or destroyed.” (ECF 5, at 2.) As discussed 17 below, the Court dismisses the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. 18 SCREENING 19 A. Legal Standard 20 Because Sanchez is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must screen his 21 amended complaint and dismiss it to the extent that it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state 22 a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. 23 §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b). “The standard for determining whether Plaintiff has failed to 24 state a claim upon which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. 26 Carter,

(9th Cir. 2012). That is, a complaint must “contain sufficient 27 1 factual matter . . . to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 2

(2009) (cleaned up). 3 B. Sanchez’s Allegations 4 In his amended complaint, Sanchez states that on April 5, 2023, legal materials, 5 including “letters, motions, [and] complaint, all related to a false conviction” were lost and 6 destroyed. (ECF 5, at 3, 8.) He alleges that on April 18, 2023, a federal petition for habeas 7 corpus was dismissed, at least in part, because these legal materials had been lost. (Id. at 5.) 8 In the rest of the amended complaint, Plaintiff raises a litany of allegations related 9 to his state criminal proceedings that the Court will not summarize in detail. In short, he 10 states his criminal conviction was based on “fabricat[ed] evidence” and that he received 11 ineffective assistance of counsel. (See ECF 5, at 3, 5, 7.) He also argues his federal habeas 12 corpus petition in 23-cv-1159-CAB-MDD1 was improperly dismissed. (Id. at 5–6.) 13 C. Discussion 14 Sanchez again alleges his constitutional rights to access the courts and due process 15 were violated when his legal materials were destroyed. (ECF 5, at 3–4.) And while he 16 makes several references to several state officials, he names only “Doe” as a defendant. 17 (Id. at 1.) 18 1. Access to Courts 19 As discussed in this Court’s previous order, prisoners have a constitutional right of 20 access to the courts. See Lewis v. Casey,

(1996); Bounds v. Smith, 21

(1977). To state a claim, a plaintiff must plausibly allege a nonfrivolous 22 legal attack on his conviction, sentence, or conditions of confinement was frustrated or 23 impeded, and he suffered an actual injury as a result. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 353–55. An “actual 24 injury” is defined as “actual prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation, 25

26 1 The Court takes judicial notice of Sanchez v. Cisneros, 3:23-cv-1159-CAB-MDD. 27 See Fed. Rule Evid. 201(b). 1 such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim.” Id. at 348. 2 Sanchez has again failed to show how the April 5, 2023 loss of his legal materials 3 “frustrated” or “impeded” his habeas case in 22-cv-1159-CAB-MDD. In that case, 4 Sanchez’s request for a stay was denied and the case dismissed on April 18, 2023. Sanchez 5 v. Cisneros, 22-cv-1159-CAB-MDD, ECF 31. But, as discussed in this Court’s previous 6 dismissal order, the briefing on those matters was complete well before the alleged loss of 7 Sanchez’s legal materials. See id. ECF 14; id. ECF 28. Therefore, Sanchez has failed to 8 state an access-to-courts claim. See Alvarez v. Hill,

, 1155 n.1 (9th Cir. 2008) 9 (stating “[f]ailure to show that a ‘non-frivolous legal claim had been frustrated’ is fatal” to 10 an access-to-courts claim). 11 2. Due Process 12 Sanchez also fails to state a procedural due process claim based on the loss of his 13 property. “[A]n unauthorized intentional deprivation of property” by a prison official 14 constitutes a violation of due process only if a meaningful post-deprivation remedy for the 15 loss is unavailable. Hudson v. Palmer,

(1984). Because California state 16 law provides Sanchez with a meaningful post-deprivation remedy, see Barnett v. Centoni, 17

, 816–17 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 810–95), he has failed to 18 state a due process claim based on the alleged loss of property. 19 3. State Criminal Proceedings and Federal Habeas Petition 20 Finally, to the extent Sanchez may be attempting to challenge the validity of his state 21 court conviction in his amended complaint, he may not do so in an action under 42 U.S.C. 22 § 1983 unless he can first demonstrate the conviction was successfully overturned. See 23 Heck v. Humphrey,

, 483–87 (1994). Nor can he challenge the dismissal of 24 his habeas petition in 22-cv-1159-CAB-MDD in this civil proceeding. 25 CONCLUSION 26 For the above reasons, the Court DISMISSES plaintiff’s amended complaint in its 27 entirety without leave to amend for failure to state a claim. See Hartmann v. Calif. Dep’t 1 || of Corr. & Rehab.,

(9th Cir. 2013) (“A district court may deny leave 2 ||to amend when amendment would be futile.”). The Court also certifies that any appeal 3 || would not be taken in good faith. See

(a)(3). 4 ||Dated: June 6, 2025

6 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27