Torres v. Kernan

Background

Tyler Jordan Torres, who was incarcerated at CTF-Soledad when he filed the case, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. He sued Scott Kernan and others; the motion addressed in this order was filed by K. Shuder and G. Garcia, officials who worked in the prison trust office.

Torres alleged that veterans’ benefits deposited into his inmate trust account were mishandled. He claimed that a $62.60 refund from a quarterly package purchase was improperly applied to photocopy and postage charges. He also alleged that, after $140 was returned to his account by J. Lorenzano, officials deducted $70 for a restitution fine, $7 for an administrative fee, and $53 for various Prison Litigation Reform Act fees. Torres contended that the returned money retained the protected status of veterans’ benefits.

Torres further alleged that officials delayed processing some of his postage and copying requests until later veterans’ benefits were deposited, causing $77.60 to be taken from those later benefits. He claimed that the officials failed to follow the first-in-first-out method and other requirements in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Financial Information Memo.

The court had previously determined during required initial screening that the complaint stated a potentially valid claim under 38 U.S.C. § 5301, but it noted that the law was unclear about whether returned funds that originally came from veterans’ benefits remained protected.

Motion to dismiss and qualified immunity

Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. They also asserted qualified immunity, a protection for government officials from damages when their conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

The court explained that § 5301 protects veterans’ benefit payments from assignment, creditors, attachment, levy, or seizure. It also recognized that a § 1983 action may be brought for a violation of § 5301.

The court assumed, for purposes of the motion, that Torres’s allegations were sufficient to state a claim under § 5301. It nevertheless held that Shuder and Garcia were entitled to qualified immunity because the relevant law was not clearly established. The cases discussed by the parties addressed veterans’ benefits held in inmate accounts and certain overdrafts or holds, but they did not resolve whether money returned by a third party after veterans’ benefits had been spent retained its protected status. The cases also did not clearly establish that officials could not delay processing postage and copying requests and later pay those requests from benefits deposited when funds became available.

Financial Information Memo and other claims

The court ruled that an alleged violation of the prison’s Financial Information Memo did not support a § 1983 claim because § 1983 requires a violation of federal law, not merely a violation of state prison regulations. The court also rejected Torres’s theory that the deductions violated the Fourth Amendment, explaining that prisoners are not protected by that amendment against the seizure, destruction, or conversion of their property.

The court further stated that, even if the allegations were treated as a due-process claim, a random and unauthorized deprivation of property generally does not support relief under § 1983 when an adequate state post-deprivation remedy exists. It found that California law provided such a remedy. The court therefore concluded that the complaint did not state a federal claim based on the Financial Information Memo.

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claim based on the Memo after dismissing the federal claims. It dismissed that state-law claim and stated that Torres could pursue it in state court.

Injunctive relief and disposition

Torres also requested an audit of his trust account and creation of a separate inmate trust account for veterans’ benefits. Because he was released from prison while the case was pending, the court held that his request for injunctive relief was moot and dismissed it.

Judge Edward M. Chen granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. The complaint was dismissed, and the order stated that the dismissal was without prejudice to Torres filing an action in state court to pursue any state-law claims he might have. The order disposed of Docket No. 28.