Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-04356/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-04356-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin R. Chappell
Defendant
Santiago Martinez
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

SANTIAGO MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

KEVIN R. CHAPPELL,

Defendants. /

No. C 12-4356 PJH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a prisoner at San Quentin State Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary;

the statement need only '"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) (citations

omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual

Case 4:12-cv-04356-PJH Document 8 Filed 01/07/13 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] to relief'

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief

above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)

(citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has recently explained

the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the

framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are

well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine

whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.

1937, 1950 (2009). 

To state a claim under 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 deprivation was committed by a person acting under the

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff alleges a violation of due process resulting from the mandatory restitution

fines arising from his conviction. Plaintiff states 55% of the money deposited into his prison

trust account is diverted towards restitution. Plaintiff seeks a return of his money and to

stop the restitution.

In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the United States Supreme Court held

that in order to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or

imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a

conviction or sentence invalid, 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 486-487. A claim for damages arising from a

conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under section

Case 4:12-cv-04356-PJH Document 8 Filed 01/07/13 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1983. Id.

When a state prisoner seeks damages in a section 1983 suit, the district court must

consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of

her continued confinement; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff

can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. Id. at 487. 

Plaintiff is challenging the validity of the restitution aspect of his conviction, but the

conviction has not been invalidated, so this claim must be dismissed. See Trimble v. City

of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995) (claims barred by Heck may be dismissed

sua sponte without prejudice).

Even looking to the merits of plaintiff’s claim, it does not warrant relief as state law

provides for restitution and plaintiff’s restitution is appropriate. California Penal Code §§

2085.5(a) and (b) permit CDCR to deduct up to 50% of a prisoner's wage and trust account

deposits and use those funds to pay off that prisoner's restitution. The entirety of this 50%

deduction must be applied to that prisoner's restitution. California Penal Code § 2085.5(c)

permits CDCR to deduct an additional amount, up to 10% of the amount deducted under

subdivision (a) or (b), as an administrative fee. Thus, one subdivision authorizes a 50%

deduction that is applied toward restitution and an entirely separate subdivision authorizes

an additional deduction that is paid as an administrative fee. The amount of the second

deduction is equal to 10% of the amount of the first deduction. Thus, if the prison deducts

50% under subdivision (a) or (b) for restitution, subdivision (c) authorizes prison officials to

deduct an additional 10% of that amount. The two amounts taken together would add up to

55% of the wage and trust account deposit as in plaintiff’s case

Nor do plaintiff’s allegations raise an Eighth Amendment violation. The Excessive

Fines clause limits the government's power to extract payments (in kind or in cash) as

punishment for some offense. United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 324 (1998). The

Eighth Amendment is implicated if a sanction has a retributive or deterrent purpose in

addition to a remedial purpose. United States v. Dubose, 146 F.3d 1141, 1144–45 (9th Cir.

1998) (holding the similar federal Mandatory Victims Restitution Act serves both a remedial

Case 4:12-cv-04356-PJH Document 8 Filed 01/07/13 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

and a deterrent, rehabilitative, and retributive purpose, so that restitution under the Act is

punishment implicating the Eighth Amendment). “[J]udgments about the appropriate

punishment for an offense belong in the first instance to the legislature.” Bajakajian, 524

U.S. at 336 (citation omitted). Only a grossly disproportionate amount will raise an Eighth

Amendment excessive fines concern. Id. at 334. (“A punitive forfeiture violates the

Excessive Fines Clause if it is grossly disproportional to the gravity of a defendant's

offense”)). Petitioner has not set forth any arguments that the restitution is grossly

disproportionate. 

CONCLUSION

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the

standards set forth above. The amended complaint must be filed no later than February 4,

2013, and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words

AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely

replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to

present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not

incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the

designated time will result in the dismissal of these claims.

2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed

“Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion. 

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2013. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.12\Martinez4356.dwlta.wpd

Case 4:12-cv-04356-PJH Document 8 Filed 01/07/13 Page 4 of 4