(PC) Hernandez v. Mule Creek State Prison

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 PABLO HERNANDEZ, No. 2:20-cv-0817 KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER MULE CREEK STATE PRISON, Defendant. 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner at Mule Creek State Prison, filed copies of administrative grievances regarding missing property. No other pleadings have been filed by the plaintiff. In order to commence an action, plaintiff must file a complaint as required by Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and plaintiff must either pay the required filing fee or file an application requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a).

22 Plaintiff is advised that the United States Supreme Court has held that “an unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available.” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517,…