(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)

Download PDF
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

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?