Parchem v. Superior Court of Stanislaus County

Background

Gary Joseph Parchem, Jr., a state inmate at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, filed a civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His application to proceed without paying the filing fee was to be addressed in a separate order. Because he sought relief from a governmental entity, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money damages from an immune defendant.

Claims and Analysis

Parchem relied on a California Court of Appeals decision, People v. Duenas, and argued that restitution fines in his state criminal convictions were imposed without determining his present ability to pay, as required by California law. He asked the federal court to reverse the fines, fees, and assessments, asserting that the state trial court had exceeded its statutory authority and violated due process.

The court first addressed the possibility that Parchem was challenging the fines through a federal custody petition. It explained that federal custody relief is available only when the petitioner is in custody under the conviction or sentence being challenged. Citing Ninth Circuit precedent, the court held that an imprisoned person does not meet that requirement when challenging only the money portion of a sentence, because changing the money judgment would not affect the person's imprisonment. The court therefore stated that such a challenge must be dismissed for lack of federal custody jurisdiction. The court also noted that Parchem had not shown that he first presented his claim to the state courts, as federal custody proceedings generally require exhaustion of available state judicial remedies.

The court separately considered the § 1983 claim. It explained that such a claim requires an alleged violation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law, committed by a person acting under state authority. The court concluded that Parchem was asserting an issue of state law based on a state appellate decision and could not convert that state-law issue into a federal claim merely by alleging a due-process violation. The court stated that Parchem must present the issue to the Superior Court of Stanislaus County for an appropriate state-law remedy.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and (2). The order was signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on October 7, 2020.