Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-03019/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-03019-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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 

ANDREW CALVIN COLEY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DANIEL E. CUEVA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-cv-3019 SCR P 

ORDER AND 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 

Plaintiff Andrew Calvin Coley, a state prisoner, proceeds without counsel and seeks relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s complaint, motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and motion for 

injunction are before the court. For the reasons set forth below, the complaint fails to state a claim 

and should be dismissed without leave to amend. In light of this recommendation, the motion for 

injunctive relief should be denied. 

I. In Forma Pauperis 

Plaintiff’s declaration in support of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 8) 

makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The motion is granted. By separate order, 

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

§ 1915(b)(1). The order will direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee 

Case 2:23-cv-03019-DJC-SCR Document 9 Filed 11/01/24 Page 1 of 5
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 

from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be 

obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to 

plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to 

the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00 until the filing 

fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 

II. 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); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if it is based on an indisputably meritless 

legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. 

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

of the claim that shows the pleader is entitled to relief. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 

544, 555 (2007). In order to state a cognizable claim, a complaint must contain more than “a 

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations 

sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. The facts alleged must “‘give 

the defendant fair notice of what the... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In reviewing a complaint 

under this standard, the court accepts as true the allegations of the complaint and construes the 

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See id.; Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 

(1974). 

III. Allegations in the Complaint 

Plaintiff received a $20.00 “J-pay” to his trust account on July 12, 2023. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) 

The mandatory amount of $10.00 should have remained, but instead, “all of it was taken 

illegally” and plaintiff had no money when he went to the canteen. (Id.) On July 31, 2023, a 

Case 2:23-cv-03019-DJC-SCR Document 9 Filed 11/01/24 Page 2 of 5
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 

$25.00 J-Pay was sent to plaintiff but when plaintiff went to the canteen, he was told he only had 

$10.00. (Id. at 3.) 

IV. The Complaint Fails to State a Claim 

A plaintiff may bring an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress violations of “rights, 

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and [federal] laws” by a person or entity, 

including a municipality, acting under the color of state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim 

under Section 1983, a plaintiff must show (1) the defendant committed the alleged conduct while 

acting under color of state law; and (2) the plaintiff was deprived of a constitutional right as a 

result of the defendant’s conduct. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 

1988). 

Plaintiff does not allege a violation of a constitutional right and cannot state a claim under 

Section 1983. Prisoners do not have a Fourth Amendment right to be free from the seizure of their 

personal property. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 536 (1984); Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F.2d 803, 

806 (9th Cir. 1989). “Hence [the Fourth Amendment] cannot protect an inmate from the 

conversion of his property.” Taylor, 871 F.2d at 806. Any form of redress for seizure of plaintiff’s 

property is through the Fourteenth Amendment. See id. 

Even assuming the defendants made unauthorized deductions from plaintiff’s trust 

account, “an unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does not 

constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available.” Hudson, 468 U.S. 

at 533. California provides a remedy for tort claims against public officials in California 

Government Code, §§ 900, et seq. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) 

(per curiam) (deprivation of a prisoner’s property fails to state a claim under Section 1983 

because California state law provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy). An exception to this 

post-deprivation rule exists when the official acted pursuant to an established procedure. See 

Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 738 (9th Cir. 2001). Here, plaintiff alleges policy 

was not followed. (See ECF No. 1 at 3.) Thus, the alleged unauthorized deprivation of property 

did not happen pursuant to an established procedure. Plaintiff does not state a claim based on 

Case 2:23-cv-03019-DJC-SCR Document 9 Filed 11/01/24 Page 3 of 5
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 

alleged illegal deductions from his trust account. 

V. Conclusion and Order 

If it is clear a complaint cannot be cured by amendment, the court may dismiss without 

leave to amend. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Lopez v. 

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff is unable to state a federal 

claim for relief arising from alleged unauthorized trust account deductions not made pursuant to 

policy. Because amendment would be futile, leave to amend should be denied. 

In addition, because plaintiff has not stated a viable claim and it is being recommended 

that the complaint be dismissed without leave to amend, plaintiff cannot show a likelihood of 

success on the merits as required for preliminary injunctive relief to issue. See Winter v. Nat. Res. 

Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (holding a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction 

must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, among other factors). 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 

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

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

by separate order. 

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to 

the case. 

In addition, IT IS RECOMMENDED as follows: 

1. Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a claim. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 7) be denied. 

3. The Clerk of the Court be directed to close this case. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 21 days after 

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

the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the 

//// 

Case 2:23-cv-03019-DJC-SCR Document 9 Filed 11/01/24 Page 4 of 5
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 

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

1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: October 31, 2024 

Case 2:23-cv-03019-DJC-SCR Document 9 Filed 11/01/24 Page 5 of 5