(PC) Chestra v. Brodie

1                                                                        
2                                                                        
3                                                                        
4                                                                        
5                                                                        
6                                                                        
7                                                                        
8                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                      
9                 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA                 
10                                                                        
11   ROBERT CHESTRA                  2:24-cv-2376-CKD P                   
12                Plaintiff,                                              
13        v.                         ORDER AND FINDINGS AND               
                                    RECOMMENDATIONS                      
14   W. BRODIE, et al.,                                                   

15                Defendants.                                             
16                                                                        

17                                                                        
18       Plaintiff Robert Chestra, a state prisoner, proceeds without counsel on a civil rights 
19  complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff paid the filing fee. This matter was referred 
20  to the undersigned by Local Rule 302. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). For the reasons set forth below, 
21  the complaint fails to state a claim and should be dismissed without leave to amend. 
22     I.   Screening Requirement                                         
23       The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 
24  governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 
25  court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 
26  “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 
27  monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 
28  ////                                                                  
1     II.  Allegations in the Complaint                                  
2       On March 1, 2023, plaintiff paid the filing fee for Chestra v. Raman, Case No. 15-CV-
3  00560-VC, a case then pending in the Northern District of California. (ECF No. 1 at 7.) 
4  Subsequently, further payments for the same case continued to be deducted from plaintiff’s 
5  inmate trust account at California Medical Facility (“CMF”), except that the case was listed as 
6  “#15-CV-00560-VC-(PR), which does not exist.” (Id. at 7-8.)           
7       Plaintiff explained to defendant John Doe #1 at the Trust office at CMF that he had paid 
8  the filing fee in full, but defendant John Doe #1 ignored the information and continued to take 
9  money from plaintiff’s trust account. (ECF No. 1 at 7.) Defendant Brodie denied plaintiff’s 602 
10  grievance on grounds that “[t]he claimant’s PLRA case number 15-CV-00560-VC-(PR) differ 
11  from 3:15-CV-00560-VC.” (Id. at 8.) Plaintiff’s attorney contacted the Clerk of Court for the 
12  Northern District of California who informed plaintiff’s attorney “there [was] no such case 
13  number [for 15-CV-00560-VC-(PR)] authorizing monthly payments to the court.” (Id. at 8-9.) 
14  Plaintiff filed an appeal containing the information received from the Clerk of the Court for the 
15  Northern District of California, but defendant Moeckly rejected the appeal, finding “this case 
16  does belong to the appellant.” (Id. at 9.)                            
17       Plaintiff alleges the defendants’ actions violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due 
18  process of law and extortion laws. (ECF No. 1 at 12.) Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and 
19  injunctive relief. (Id.)                                              
20     III.  Discussion                                                   
21       Neither the negligent nor intentional deprivation of property states a due process claim 
22  under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the deprivation was random and unauthorized. See Parratt v. Taylor, 
23  451 U.S. 527, 535-44 (1981) (no due process violation where state employee negligently lost 
24  prisoner’s hobby kit) (overruled in part on other grounds); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 
25  (1984) (unauthorized intentional destruction of inmate’s property not a due process violation 
26  where the state provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy). Instead, a due process claim may 
27  lie for deprivation of property when the official acted pursuant to an established procedure. See 
28  Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 738 (9th Cir. 2001). The distinction exists because 
1  pre-deprivation procedures are impracticable when deprivations of property occur through 
2  random and unauthorized conduct of a state employee since the state cannot know when such 
3  deprivations will occur. Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533.                     
4       Under plaintiff’s allegations, the alleged deprivation of his property is unauthorized 
5  because he alleges the trust account deductions are based on a fake case without any 
6  corresponding authorization from a court for monthly payments. No due process claim lies 
7  because the availability of an adequate state post-deprivation remedy provides sufficient 
8  procedural due process. See Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 128 (1990). Specifically, 
9  California provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy in the form of the Government Claims 
10  Act. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (citing Cal. Gov’t Code 
11  §§ 810-895). The availability of California’s Government Claims Act as a postdeprivation 
12  remedy satisfies due process under the circumstances, and, accordingly, no due process claim lies. 
13  See Parratt, 451 U.S. at 538.1                                        
14       Plaintiff also fails to state an extortion claim because he has no private cause of action 
15  against the defendants for extortion. “Civil causes of action… do not generally lie under the 
16  criminal statutes contained in Title 18 of the United States Code.” Del Elmer; Zachay v. Metzger, 
17  967 F. Supp. 398, 403 (S.D. Cal. 1997); see also Abcarian v. Levine, 972 F.3d 1019, 1026 (9th 
18  Cir. 2020) (no private cause of action for extortion under the Hobbs Act). This court lacks 
19  jurisdiction to entertain an extortion claim brought by a private individual rather than a 
20  government agency. See McKeague v. Matsuura, No. CIV 08-00571 ACK KSC, 2009 WL 
21  89112, at *1 (D. Haw. Jan. 12, 2009) (“To the extent that Plaintiff alleges that any of Defendants’ 
22  actions are criminal and violate federal criminal statutes involving fraud, extortion, grand theft, 
23  conspiracy, and conversion, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear allegations of criminal conduct 
24  that are brought by private individuals rather than a governmental agency.”) (citing United States 
25  v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974)).                                  
26                                                                        

27  1 To any extent the United States District Court for the Northern District of California did 
   authorize the payments at issue, then plaintiff’s remedy, if any, is to seek a refund of any 
28  overpayment of funds from the Northern District of California.        
1       Leave to amend should be granted if it appears possible that the defects in the complaint 
2  could be corrected, especially if a plaintiff is pro se. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th 
3  Cir. 2000) (en banc). If, however, it is clear that a complaint cannot be cured by amendment, the 
4  court may dismiss without leave to amend. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 
5  1995). In this instance, amendment would be futile because plaintiff cannot state a due process 
6  claim based on the unauthorized deprivations alleged. Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint should 
7  be dismissed without leave to amend. See Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. 
8  Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that while leave to amend shall be freely 
9  given, the court does not have to allow futile amendments).           
10     IV.  Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Party                       
11       The following information is meant to explain this order in plain English. It is not 
12  intended as legal advice.                                             
13       Your allegations do not state a due process claim because California provides an adequate 
14  postdeprivation remedy through the Government Claims Act for any unauthorized deductions 
15  from your trust account. Thus, it is being recommended that your case be dismissed without leave 
16  to amend. If you disagree, you have 14 days to inform the court. Label your explanation 
17  “Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and state the specific 
18  facts you could allege to state a claim.                              
19     V.   Order and Recommendation                                      
20       For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court 
21  shall assign a district judge to this case.                           
22       In addition, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED as follows:                
23       1.   Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a claim. 
24       2.  The Clerk of the Court be directed to close this case.       
25       These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 
26  assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days after 
27  being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 
28  the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 
1  |  Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the 
2 || specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 
3  |}  1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 
4  |  Dated:  May 23, 2025                        Card  ke     yy    a 
5                                          CAROLYN K  DELANEY? 
6                                          UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 
7 
    8, ches2376.sern.fr 
8 
9 
10 
1] 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28