(PC) Hatchett v. Clark et al

Filing 8

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 7/29/2024 GRANTING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP, ORDERING that Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350, and DIRECTING the Clerk of the Cou rt to randomly assign a US District Judge. It is RECOMMENDED that 1 Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a claim. Senior District Judge William B. Shubb and Magistrate Judge Allison Claire assigned for all further proceedings. Referred to Senior District Judge William B. Shubb. Objections due within 21 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. New Case Number: 2:23-cv-1215-WBS-AC (PC). (Huang, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CECIL JEROME HATCHETT,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:23-cv-1215 AC P

v.
KEN CLARK, et al.,

15

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and

17
18
19

has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
I.

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

20

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C.

21

§ 1915(a). ECF Nos. 2, 6. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

22

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C.

23

§§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in

24

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct

25

the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and

26

forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments

27

of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account.

28

These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time
1

1

the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C.

2

§ 1915(b)(2).

3

II.

4

Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against “a

5

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

6

The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are

7

“frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[]

8

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

9

A claim “is [legally] frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”

10

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th

11

Cir. 1984). “[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal

12

theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639,

13

640 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327), superseded by statute on other grounds as

14

stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). The critical inquiry is whether a

15

constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis.

16

Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227-28 (citations omitted).

17

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the

18

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of

19

what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550

20

U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).

21

“Failure to state a claim under § 1915A incorporates the familiar standard applied in the context

22

of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Wilhelm v. Rotman,

23

680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). In order to survive dismissal for failure

24

to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

25

cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the

26

speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). “[T]he pleading must contain

27

something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally

28

////
2

1

cognizable right of action.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur

2

R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216 (3d ed. 2004)).

3

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to

4

relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting

5

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual

6

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

7

misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). In reviewing a complaint under this

8

standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp. Bldg.

9

Co. v. Trs. of the Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976) (citation omitted), as well as construe the

10

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor,

11

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969) (citations omitted).

12

III.

Complaint

13

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Clark, whom he identifies as a warden in charge of inmate

14

trust account funds, and Doe defendants at Fisher Investment Group, Franklin Templeton Group,

15

J-Pay, and Walkenhorst’s Inmate Packages, have violated his constitutional rights. ECF No. 1.

16

Specifically, plaintiff asserts that he has attempted to deposit checks for one septillion dollars at

17

Fisher Investment Group, ten million dollars at Franklin Templeton and J-Pay, ten million thirty

18

thousand dollars at Mule Creek State Prison, and ten thousand dollars at Walkenhorst’s, but all

19

defendants have all refused to honor the checks, saying they do not take checks from inmates

20

because they do not trust them. Id. at 2. Plaintiff alleges that defendants are discriminating

21

against him because he is an inmate and that they have refused to return the checks to plaintiff so

22

that he may attempt to cash them elsewhere. Id. at 4.

23
24
25

IV.

Failure to State a Claim
A.

Equal Protection

With respect to plaintiff’s claim that he is being discriminated against because he is an

26

inmate, the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires the State to treat all

27

similarly situated people equally. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439

28

(1985) (citation omitted). “To state a claim for violation of the Equal Protection Clause, a
3

1

plaintiff must show that the defendant acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against him

2

based upon his membership in a protected class.” Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th

3

Cir. 2003) (citing Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)). Prisoners are not a

4

protected class. Webber v. Crabtree, 158 F.3d 460, 461 (9th Cir. 1998) (inmates denied tobacco

5

use based on housing location not a protected class). Alternatively, a plaintiff may state an equal

6

protection claim if he shows similarly situated individuals were intentionally treated differently

7

without a rational relationship to a legitimate government purpose. Vill. of Willowbrook v.

8

Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000) (citations omitted).

9

Inmates are not a protected class for equal protection purposes, nor are they similarly

10

situated to non-inmates. Accordingly, plaintiff cannot state a claim for relief based on allegations

11

that defendants violated his equal protection rights when they refused to cash or deposit his

12

checks because he is an inmate.

13

B.

14

The unauthorized deprivation of property by a prison official, whether intentional or

Property

15

negligent, does not state a claim under § 1983 if the state provides an adequate post-deprivation

16

remedy, Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984), and “California Law provides an adequate

17

post-deprivation remedy for any property deprivations,” Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17

18

(9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (citing Cal. Gov't Code §§ 810-895). Therefore, to the extent

19

plaintiff is attempting to state a due process claim against any defendant based on the refusal to

20

return his checks, he fails to state a claim for relief.

21

C.

22

Plaintiff does not state any claims for relief against the Doe defendants employed by

23

Fisher Investment Group, Franklin Templeton Group, J-Pay, and Walkenhorst’s because 42

24

U.S.C. § 1983 applies only to persons who are “acting under color of state law.” Marsh v.

25

County of San Diego, 680 F.3d 1148, 1158 (9th Cir. 2012). “‘[T]he under-color-of-state-law

26

element of § 1983 excludes from its reach merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory

27

or wrongful.’” Id. (quoting Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 50 (1999)). To

28

state claims against these defendants, plaintiff would have to allege facts demonstrating that their

Private Actors

4

1

conduct was “fairly attributable to the State.” See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988) (to

2

state a claim under § 1983 a defendant’s conduct must be “fairly attributable to the State”

3

(citation omitted)).

4

V.

5

No Leave to Amend
Leave to amend should be granted if it appears possible that the defects in the complaint

6

could be corrected, especially if a plaintiff is pro se. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31

7

(9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). However, if, after careful consideration, it is clear that a complaint

8

cannot be cured by amendment, the court may dismiss without leave to amend. Cato v. United

9

States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 1995).

10

The undersigned finds that, as set forth above, the complaint fails to state a claim upon

11

which relief may be granted and that given the nature of the claims, amendment would be futile.

12

The complaint should therefore be dismissed without leave to amend.

13
14
15

VI.

Plain Language Summary of this Order for a Pro Se Litigant
Your request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. That means you do not have to pay

the entire filing fee now. You will pay it over time, out of your trust account.

16

It is being recommended that your complaint be dismissed without leave to amend

17

because you cannot state an equal protection claim based on being treated differently because you

18

are a prisoner. That is because prisoners are not a protected class and they are not in a similar

19

position to non-prisoners. Your claim for the loss of your money does not state a claim for relief

20

that can be pursued in this court. Finally, you cannot state a claim against individuals who were

21

not state actors.

22

CONCLUSION

23

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

24

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED.

25

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff

26

is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

27

§ 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the

28

appropriate agency filed concurrently herewith.
5

1
2
3
4
5

3. The Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this
action.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed without leave to
amend for failure to state a claim.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

6

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days

7

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

8

with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings

9

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified

10

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

11

(9th Cir. 1991).

12

DATED: July 29, 2024

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6