Griffin v. Long et al
Filing
19
ORDER directing Clerk of Court to randomly assign District Judge to Action; District Judge Dale A. Drozd assigned. FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending dismissal of action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted re 9 signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 3/20/2018. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd; Objections to F & R's due within 14-Days. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DAMIAN E. GRIFFIN,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
LONG, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON
WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
18
I.
Background
Plaintiff Damian E. Griffin (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
20
21
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO
ACTION
(ECF No. 9)
17
19
Case No. 1:15-cv-01361-BAM (PC)
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The original complaint was filed in this action on September 4, 2015. Plaintiff challenged
22
23
the validity of deducting a restitution fine from his trust account pursuant to a prior criminal
24
conviction. (ECF No. 1.) On September 14, 2015, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a
25
United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 5.)
On August 15, 2016, a screening order was entered, finding Plaintiff had failed to state a
26
27
cognizable claim and granting Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 8.)
28
///
1
1
On August 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 9.) Rather than
2
challenging the propriety of any restitution order or that he owed restitution, Plaintiff’s first
3
amended complaint alleged that defendants improperly deducted restitution amounts from funds
4
not subject to such restitution. Plaintiff alleged that only funds from “an outside source” are
5
available for a deduction. On May 3, 2017, an order was entered, finding that the first amended
6
complaint also failed to state any claims for relief. This action was then dismissed for failure to
7
state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff appealed.
8
9
On January 25, 2018, this action was vacated and remanded the action to this Court. (ECF
No. 17.) Specifically, the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo whether the undersigned validly
10
entered judgment on behalf of the district court. The Ninth Circuit found that because Plaintiff’s
11
action was dismissed before the named defendants had been served, and “all parties, including
12
unserved defendants, must consent to proceed before the magistrate judge for jurisdiction to vest,
13
Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503–04 (9th Cir. 2017),” the undersigned’s May 3, 2017 order
14
was vacated and remanded for further proceedings. (Id. at 2.) The Ninth Circuit issued its
15
mandate on February 16, 2018. (ECF No. 18.)
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed on August 26, 2016, is
16
17
currently before the Court for screening.
18
II.
Screening Requirement and Standard
19
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
20
governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
21
§ 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous
22
or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary
23
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C.
24
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
25
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
26
pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not
27
required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
28
conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell
2
1
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken
2
as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores,
3
Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
4
Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings
5
liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338,
6
342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially
7
plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each
8
named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks
9
omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that
10
a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of
11
satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572
12
F.3d at 969.
Plaintiff’s Allegations
13
A.
14
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the California City Correctional Facility (“CCCF”),
15
where the events in the complaint are alleged to have occurred. Plaintiff names the following
16
defendants, all employed at CCCF: (1) K. Washington, Accounting Trainee; (2) Kristina Hill,
17
Senior Accounting Officer Supervisor; and (3) L. Hartin, Accounting Staff.
18
Plaintiff alleges as follows: On April 27, 2015, Plaintiff left his former institution, the
19
Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility, in Tutwiler, Mississippi. On April 29, 2015, Plaintiff
20
was processed at CCCF.
21
On June 9, 2015, funds in the amount of $205.66 were transferred from Plaintiff’s trust
22
account in Mississippi to his trust account in California. On the same date, a $102.83 direct order
23
fee was deducted by defendants. Plaintiff claims that this deduction violated his rights and
24
deprived him of his liberty interest. Plaintiff asserts that funds already in his prison account are
25
not subject to any restitution or direct order, and it is only funds that are sent from an outside
26
source that are subject to any deductions. Plaintiff used the internal request and grievance
27
procedure without recourse. Plaintiff further claims that he was denied due process when he was
28
given no way to dispute the action taken by defendants before the funds were deducted from
3
1
money already deposited in his account.
2
Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, plus costs of suit.
3
B.
4
In his amended complaint, Plaintiff is not challenging the propriety of any restitution
Discussion
5
order or that he owes restitution. Instead, Plaintiff claims that defendants improperly deducted
6
restitution amounts from funds not subject to such deduction. Plaintiff asserts that only funds
7
from “an outside source” are available for a deduction.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
According to exhibits attached to his complaint, California Penal Code section 2085.5
governs deductions by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for the
restitution fines at issue. In relevant part, section 2085.5 states:
If a prisoner owes a restitution fine imposed pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section
13967 of the Government Code, as operative prior to September 29, 1994,
subdivision (b) of Section 730.6 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, or
subdivision (b) of Section 1202.4 of this code, the secretary shall deduct a
minimum of 20 percent or the balance owing on the fine amount, whichever is
less, up to a maximum of 50 percent from the wages and trust account deposits
of a prisoner, unless prohibited by federal law, and shall transfer that amount to
the California Victim Compensation Board for deposit in the Restitution Fund.
The amount deducted shall be credited against the amount owing on the fine. The
sentencing court shall be provided a record of the payments.
17
18
Cal. Penal Code § 2085.5(a) (West 2017) (emphasis added). Based on the language of section
19
2085.5(a), deductions for restitution fines may be taken from wages and deposits in a prisoner’s
20
trust account regardless of the source of those funds. Plaintiff therefore cannot maintain a claim
21
that the funds in his trust account on June 9, 2015, were not subject to deduction for restitution
22
fines. The Ninth Circuit has held that “California Penal Code § 2085.5, requiring the California
23
Director of Corrections to make deductions from the wages and trust account deposits of
24
prisoners for payment of restitution obligations, is rationally related to legitimate state interests in
25
compensating crime victims.” Craft v. Ahuja, 475 Fed.Appx. 649, 650 (9th Cir. 2012), citing
26
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987) (“[W]hen a prison regulation impinges on inmates'
27
constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological
28
interests.”)
4
1
Additionally, to the extent Plaintiff challenges the result of his administrative appeals, he
2
may not do so. Plaintiff cannot pursue any claims against staff relating to their involvement in
3
the administrative review of his inmate appeals. The existence of an inmate appeals process does
4
not create a protected liberty interest upon which Plaintiff may base a claim that he was denied a
5
particular result or that the appeals process was deficient. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860
6
(9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988).
7
III.
Conclusion and Order
8
Plaintiff was previously notified of the applicable legal standard and the deficiencies in his
9
pleading, and despite guidance from the Court, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint fails to correct
10
the deficiencies identified in the order dismissing the original complaint. Based on the nature of
11
the deficiencies at issue, the Court finds that further leave to amend is not warranted. Lopez v.
12
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1449 (9th Cir.
13
1987).
14
15
16
17
Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to randomly assign a
District Judge to this action.
Furthermore, for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this
action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted.
18
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
19
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within
20
fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may
21
file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to
22
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file
23
objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the
24
magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir.
25
2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
27
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
March 20, 2018
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?