Jenkins v. Garcia et al

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 11/19/2020. (amd2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2020)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Case 3:20-cv-04420-WHA Document 3 Filed 11/19/20 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

Plaintiff,

8

G. GARCIA; S. HERRERA; S.
SALAS; J. VERNON,

11
Defendants.
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.

9
10

No. C 20-4420 WHA (PR)

ROBERT LEE JENKINS,

/

12
13

INTRODUCTION
14
Plaintiff is a California prisoner who filed this pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
15
against prison officials for improperly paying funds from his trust account to the federal court
16
for partial filing fees in several of plaintiff’s civil rights cases. For the reasons discussed below,
17
the complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. Leave to proceed
18
in forma pauperis is granted in a separate order.
19
ANALYSIS
20
A.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

21
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which a plaintiff seeks
22
to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). In its review the court must dismiss
23
any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be
24
granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at §
25
1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
26
Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
27
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the
28
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." “Specific facts are not necessary; the

Case 3:20-cv-04420-WHA Document 3 Filed 11/19/20 Page 2 of 3

1

statement need only ‘“give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds

2

upon which it rests.”’” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted).

3

Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a

4

plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than

5

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not

6

do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative

7

level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A

8

complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id.

9

at 1974.
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2)

12

that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

13

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

14

B.

15

LEGAL CLAIMS
Plaintiff alleges that defendants have improperly paid money from his trust account to

16

the federal court for initial partial payment of filing fees in several of plaintiff’s civil rights

17

cases. Plaintiff claims that these actions violated his right to due process.

18

Neither the negligent nor intentional deprivation of property states a due process claim

19

under section 1983 if the deprivation was random and not authorized by state law. See Parratt

20

v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535-44 (1981). The availability of an adequate state post-deprivation

21

remedy, e.g., a state tort action, precludes relief because it provides sufficient procedural due

22

process. See Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 128 (1990). California law provides such an

23

adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994)

24

(citing Cal. Gov't Code §§ 810-895). If the deprivation of property was in fact authorized by

25

state law, however, the availability of a post-termination tort action does not necessarily provide

26

due process. See Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 435-37 (1982). Plaintiff

27

alleges that the withdrawal of his funds was not random and unauthorized. This does not mean

28
2

Case 3:20-cv-04420-WHA Document 3 Filed 11/19/20 Page 3 of 3

1

that his right to due process was implicated. The alleged authority for defendants to take his

2

money was not state law. Rather, it was the federal court’s orders to pay partial filing fees that

3

purportedly authorized defendants to withdraw the funds. There is no legal authority providing

4

that an inmate’s right to due process is implicated when state officials deprive an inmate of

5

property under federal court authority. Plaintiff’s remedy, if any, for his claim that the federal

6

court orders did not authorize prison officials to pay the funds is to seek a refund of the funds

7

from the federal court to which such funds were paid.

8
9

Plaintiff seeks $25,000 in damages, although defendants disbursed less than $200 from
his account. Under the PLRA, he may not obtain damages for emotional distress because he did
not suffer any physical injury. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). The most he can obtain is compensatory

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

damages, or a refund of any overpayments, which, as discussed, he must seek from the federal

12

court to which such funds were paid.

13

CONCLUSION

14

For the reasons set out above, this case is DISMISSED.

15

The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
Dated: November

19

, 2020.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3