Demetrio Cabrera v. D. Campagna, et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 25, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-10941
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DEMETRIO CABRERA, Case No. 25-cv-10941-JD

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE DISMISSAL v. 9

10 D. CAMPAGNA, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He 14 has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 15 DISCUSSION 16 STANDARD OF REVIEW 17 Federal courts engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress 18 from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1915A(a). The Court will identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which are 20 frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief 21 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings are 22 liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 24 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed 25 factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to 26 relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 27 cause of action will not do . . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above 1 omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 2 face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face” 3 standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they 4 must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court 5 should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement 6 to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 7 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by 8 the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was 9 committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 10 LEGAL CLAIMS 11 Plaintiff states that prison officials failed to promptly stop payment on a check from his 12 trust account that was fraudulently cashed. An inmate has a protected property interest in his 13 prison trust account funds. Quick v. Jones, 754 F.2d 1521, 1523 (9th Cir. 1985). But neither the 14 negligent nor intentional deprivation of property states a due process claim under Section 1983 if 15 the deprivation was random and unauthorized. See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535-44 (1981) 16 (state employee negligently lost prisoner’s hobby kit), overruled in part on other grounds, Daniels 17 v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31 (1986); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) 18 (intentional destruction of inmate’s property). The availability of an adequate state post- 19 deprivation remedy, e.g., a state tort action, precludes relief because it provides sufficient 20 procedural due process. See Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 128 (1990) (where state cannot 21 foresee, and therefore provide meaningful hearing prior to, deprivation statutory provision for 22 post-deprivation hearing or common law tort remedy for erroneous deprivation satisfies due 23 process). California law provides such an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Barnett v. 24 Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 810-895). 25 Plaintiff says that he sent a $700 check from his prison trust account to an individual, but 26 that person never received it. He attempted to stop payment on the check but was delayed due to 27 various forms that were required to be completed. Due to the delay, an unknown individual 1 improperly denied his inmate grievance regarding the issue. The grievance was exhausted and 2 denied after prison officials informed plaintiff that the prison could not issue a refund because the 3 check was cashed before the stop payment was instituted. Plaintiff was told that because there 4 was a forged endorsement on the check, the process to obtain a refund was handled by the State 5 Treasury’s Office and he was told what form should be submitted to that office. 6 While the loss of the money is understandably upsetting, plaintiff’s allegations fail to state 7 a federal claim. Plaintiff’s allegations demonstrate that defendants may possibly have been 8 negligent in their actions that led to the loss of the money. But this does not present a 9 constitutional violation. While plaintiff has a right to procedural protections in relation to the 10 withdrawal of the funds, Quick, 754 F.2d at 1523, the process due to inmates for removal of funds 11 from inmate accounts in minimal. See Myers v. Klevenhagen, 97 F.3d 91, 95-96 (5th Cir. 1996) 12 (notice and adequate post-deprivation remedy are all that is required for unauthorized inmate trust 13 account withdrawals ); Gardner v. Wilson, 959 F. Supp. 1224, 1229 (C.D. Cal. 1997) (finding that 14 due process requires no more than notice and a post-deprivation grievance process); Torres v. 15 Brown, 2016 WL 524804, at *3 (E.D. Cal. 2016) (the fraudulent removal of funds from inmate’s 16 account did not state a federal claim where plaintiff was provided notice and a post-deprivation 17 grievance process). Plaintiff was told how to stop payment on the check, was able to file an 18 inmate grievance, was told how to request a refund from the State Treasury’s Office due to the 19 forged endorsement, and he can use the state post-deprivation remedy process noted above. 20 With respect to the allegations that his inmate grievance was improperly denied, this also 21 fails to state a federal claim. Inmates cannot sue a grievance reviewer merely because the 22 reviewer denied the inmate’s appeals. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); 23 Young v. Voong, 738 F. App’x 509, 510 (9th Cir. 2018) (“Young ‘lack[s] a separate constitutional 24 entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.’”) (unpublished). 25 The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend for plaintiff to file an amended complaint 26 and present a federal claim. In an amended complaint, he must present allegations that 27 demonstrate a constitutional violation. Plaintiff is also encouraged to follow the appropriate state 1 CONCLUSION 2 1. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. The amended complaint must be 3 filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is filed and must include the caption and 4 || civil case number used in this order and the words Amended Complaint on the first page. Because 5 an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all 6 || the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He 7 || may not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to amend within 8 || the designated time may result in the dismissal of this action. 9 2. It is the plaintiffs responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the 10 || Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice 11 of Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to 12 || do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of E 13 Civil Procedure 41(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 15 || Dated: February 25, 2026

JAMES ATO 18 United S#tes District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28