Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01403/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01403-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUGENE E. ANDREYEV,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMY VAN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-01403-DJC-CKD PS

ORDER

Plaintiff, Eugene E. Andreyev, proceeds without counsel and seeks relief for an alleged 

violation of his federal civil rights based on the seizure of his vehicle and its contents.

1 Plaintiff’s

complaint filed on July 13, 2023 (ECF No. 1), is before the court for screening. As set forth 

below, the allegations in the complaint do not state a claim, but plaintiff is granted 30 days from 

service of this order to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiff has also filed an application in support of a request to proceed in forma pauperis. 

(ECF No. 2.) The application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

////

1 This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1).

Case 2:23-cv-01403-CKD Document 3 Filed 09/08/23 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

I. Screening Requirement

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis 

proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a 

claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 

immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 

(2000). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 

court accepts as true the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly 

baseless or fanciful, and construes those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. 

See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 

954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011).

Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines 

v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory 

allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council 

v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 

action does not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 

(2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to 

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial 

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pro se 

litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity to amend

unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 

F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in Lopez v. 

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

II. Plaintiff’s Allegations

City of Citrus Heights police officers “and a chief” towed plaintiff’s car. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) 

This happened without giving plaintiff a chance to take it off the street “within 72 hours as 

Case 2:23-cv-01403-CKD Document 3 Filed 09/08/23 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

California law allowed” and instead of giving the car to plaintiff’s friend “as [was] promised[.]”

(Id. at 3, 5.) Plaintiff was “locked up in jail for over a month[.]” (Id. at 3.) When plaintiff was 

released, the car was already sold. (Id.) Plaintiff’s tools for doing construction and car repair were 

in the car. (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges a violation of his federal civil rights based on the seizure of personal 

property, loss of the vehicle, and loss of items in the vehicle. (ECF No. 1 at 4.) The defendants 

named in the complaint are the City of Citrus Heights City Clerk, two police officers, and the City 

of Citrus Heights Chief of Police. (Id. at 2.)

III. The complaint fails to state a claim.

To state a claim under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 

essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 

violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of 

state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). The court considers below whether plaintiff has 

alleged an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment or a violation of procedural due 

process under the Fourteenth Amendment so as to meet the first essential element for a claim 

under the Civil Rights Act.

A. Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, 

papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. CONST. amend. IV. A 

seizure of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s 

possessory interests in that property. Soldal v. Cook County, Ill., 506 U.S. 56, 61 (1992). The 

impoundment of plaintiff’s vehicle was a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

Police officers are permitted to impound vehicles pursuant to the community caretaker 

exception to the Fourth Amendment. South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 368 (1976). 

Whether a vehicle may be impounded under the community caretaking doctrine “depends on the 

location of the vehicle and the police officer’s duty to prevent it from creating a hazard to other 

drivers or from being a target for vandalism or theft.” United States v. Caseres, 533 F.3d 1064, 

1075 (9th Cir. 2008); Hallstrom v. Garden City, 991 F.2d 1473, 1477 n.4 (9th Cir. 1993) 

Case 2:23-cv-01403-CKD Document 3 Filed 09/08/23 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

(upholding the towing of a car from a public parking lot following the driver’s arrest pursuant to 

the community caretaking exception of the warrant requirement).

Here, plaintiff alleges the impoundment occurred without giving plaintiff a chance to take 

the car off the street “within 72 hours as California law allowed” and without giving the car to 

plaintiff’s friend “as [was] promised[.]” (ECF No. 1 at 3, 5.) “The reasonableness of any 

particular governmental activity does not necessarily or invariably turn on the existence of 

alternative ‘less intrusive’ means.” Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 373 (1987) (quoting 

Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 647 (1983)). This means that police have no Fourth 

Amendment obligation to offer a driver an opportunity to avoid impoundment. Bertine, 479 U.S. 

at 373 (rejecting argument that the Fourth Amendment required police to give opportunity to 

make other arrangements).

Even if, as plaintiff alleges, California law allowed for plaintiff’s vehicle to remain where 

it was for up to 72 hours, and even if, as plaintiff alleges, an officer promised some alternative to 

impoundment plaintiff, the allegations in the complaint do not state a claim for a violation of 

plaintiff’s rights under the Fourth Amendment. The complaint does not describe any 

circumstances suggesting impoundment was inconsistent with the community caretaking function

in this instance. Plaintiff has not pleaded any facts that plausibly suggest the seizure was 

unreasonable. Under Opperman, “[t]he authority of police to seize and remove from the streets 

vehicles impeding traffic or threatening public safety and convenience is beyond challenge.” 428 

U.S. at 369; see also Hallstrom, 991 F.2d at 1478 n.4.

B. Fourteenth Amendment

In addition to the impoundment of the vehicle, plaintiff challenges his loss of the vehicle 

and its contents. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits any state from depriving “any person of 

life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. CONST. amend XIV, § 1. 

Determination of what process is due is a fact-specific inquiry requiring consideration of three

factors:

[1] the private interest that will be affected by the official action; [2]

the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the 

Case 2:23-cv-01403-CKD Document 3 Filed 09/08/23 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or 

substitute procedural safeguards; and [3] the Government’s 

interest...

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976).

As to the sale of plaintiff’s vehicle and plaintiff’s additional loss of the vehicle’s contents, 

even unauthorized and intentional deprivations of property do not constitute a violation of 

procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause if a meaningful post-deprivation remedy for 

the loss is available. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). The Ninth Circuit has held that 

“California Law provides an adequate post- deprivation remedy for any property deprivations” by 

public officials. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994); see Cal. Gov’t Code § 

810 et seq. (“Government Claims Act”). Accordingly, no claim lies under the Fourteenth 

Amendment for the loss of plaintiff’s property. See Hudson, 468 U.S. at 534-35 (the availability 

of a common-law tort suit against a state employee constitutes an adequate post-deprivation 

remedy for both negligent and intentional deprivation of property); Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 

327, 328 (1986) (“the Due Process Clause is simply not implicated by a negligent act of an 

official causing unintended loss of or injury to life, liberty, or property”) (emphasis omitted). 

IV. Conclusion and Order

The complaint fails to state a claim for a violation of plaintiff’s federal civil rights and 

must be dismissed. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within the time frame

set forth below. See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

15(a) (Leave to amend should be “freely given when justice so requires.”).

If plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, it should be titled “First Amended 

Complaint” and reference the appropriate case number. An amended complaint must be complete 

in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967); Local Rule 220. If plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, the complaint should

allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved in the alleged violations.

In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted.

2. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Case 2:23-cv-01403-CKD Document 3 Filed 09/08/23 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file an 

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned 

this case and must be labeled “First Amended Complaint”; plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file 

an amended complaint or otherwise respond to this order will result in a recommendation that this

action be dismissed.

Dated: September 7, 2023

8

Andreyev23cv1403.scrn

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-01403-CKD Document 3 Filed 09/08/23 Page 6 of 6