Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00583/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00583-1/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

GREGORIO ORTIZ, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICK HILL, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-00583-CKD-P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1). 

Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Since plaintiff has submitted a 

declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), his request will be granted. 

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

1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the 

initial partial filing fee 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).

Case 2:19-cv-00583-KJM-CKD Document 16 Filed 01/28/20 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

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

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

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

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

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

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, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 

“naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 

of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 

upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. 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. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 

the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007), and 

construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 

U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

II. Allegations in the Complaint

The allegations in the complaint stem from plaintiff’s 2001 criminal convictions in two 

separate cases that were ordered to be served consecutively. ECF No. 1 at 5. As part of these

Case 2:19-cv-00583-KJM-CKD Document 16 Filed 01/28/20 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

criminal judgments, plaintiff was ordered to pay $200 in restitution in Case No. KA051285 and 

$1,000 in restitution in Case No. KA052823. ECF No. 1 at 5. The CDCR has now started 

deducting funds from plaintiff’s inmate trust account to pay the $1,000 in restitution ordered in 

his second case. Id. According to plaintiff, the $1,000 restitution fine is not due and payable 

“[u]ntil plaintiff’s 61 year to life [sentence from his first case] is complete.” Id. Plaintiff asserts 

that deducting the $1,000 restitution from his prison trust account violates the Eighth Amendment 

and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ECF No. 1 at 5, 13.

Plaintiff has named six prison officials at California State Prison-Folsom, including the 

warden and administrative appeal examiners, as defendants in this action. However, plaintiff 

does not identify how any named defendant was responsible for any of the deductions from 

plaintiff’s inmate trust account connected to the restitution order. 

By way of relief, plaintiff requests a refund of approximately $400 that was taken from his 

prison trust account, attorney’s fees of $5,000 as a pro se litigant, an accounting by CDCR of 

whether the restitution was actually paid to the victims, and a waiver of all fines since he is a lifesentenced inmate. ECF No. 1 at 21.

III. Legal Standards

A claim for damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for 

other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid 

is not cognizable under § 1983. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). A plaintiff must 

prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive 

order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into 

question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Id. at 486-87. 

IV. Analysis

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it fails to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted under federal law. Plaintiff’s challenge to the $1,000 restitution 

ordered in Case No. KA052823 was part of the criminal judgment issued by the state court. 

Notably, plaintiff does not allege that the restitution portion of his judgment was unlawfully 

imposed by the state court or was subsequently overturned on appeal. Plaintiff merely disagrees 

Case 2:19-cv-00583-KJM-CKD Document 16 Filed 01/28/20 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

with CDCR about when the restitution may be deducted from his prison trust account. Because 

plaintiff is challenging the validity of the restitution aspect of his conviction and the conviction 

has not been invalidated, his due process and Eighth Amendment claims are Heck barred. See

Perez v. Ducart, 2019 WL 3457841 at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2019) (stating that “[b]ecause

Plaintiff is challenging the validity of the restitution aspect of his conviction and the conviction 

has not been invalidated, his due process claim is subject to the Heck bar.”); Garland v. Cate, 

2013 WL 129298 at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2013) (same). As a result, plaintiff’s complaint must be 

dismissed. 

V. Leave to Amend

If the court finds that a complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, the court 

has discretion to dismiss with or without leave to amend. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-

30 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Leave to amend should be granted if it appears possible that the 

defects in the complaint could be corrected, especially if a plaintiff is pro se. Id. at 1130-31; see

also Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (“A pro se litigant must be given 

leave to amend his or her complaint, and some notice of its deficiencies, unless it is absolutely 

clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.”) (citing Noll v. 

Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987)). However, if, after careful consideration, it is clear 

that a complaint cannot be cured by amendment, the court may dismiss without leave to amend. 

Cato, 70 F.3d at 1005-06.

In this case, the undersigned recommends dismissing the complaint without leave to 

amend. Here, amendment would be futile because the deficiencies identified above are not 

curable in a manner that would lead to any cognizable claim for relief that is not Heck barred. If 

plaintiff’s state court judgment in Case No. KA052823 is invalidated at any point, plaintiff may 

file a new complaint. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583 (9th Cir. 1995). For all 

these reasons, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed without leave to amend. 

Hartmann v. CDCR, 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013) (“A district court may deny leave to 

amend when amendment would be futile.”).

/////

Case 2:19-cv-00583-KJM-CKD Document 16 Filed 01/28/20 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

VI. Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Party

The following information is meant to explain this order in plain English and is not 

intended as legal advice. 

The court has reviewed the allegations in your complaint and concluded that it does not 

state a claim for relief. Allowing you to amend the complaint would be futile because it would 

not fix the issues with the complaint identified in this order. As a result, it is recommended that 

you not be granted leave to amend your complaint and that this civil action be closed. 

If you disagree with this recommendation, you have 14 days to explain why it is not the 

correct result. Label your explanation as “Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.”

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

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

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

shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

3. The Clerk of Court randomly assign this matter to a district court judge.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without leave 

to amend for failing to state a claim.

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 fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party 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.” Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

////

////

////

////

Case 2:19-cv-00583-KJM-CKD Document 16 Filed 01/28/20 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

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: January 28, 2020

12/orti0583.8(a)dismiss.docx

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-00583-KJM-CKD Document 16 Filed 01/28/20 Page 6 of 6