(PC) Gosztyla v. Allison
1:22-cv-00763-JLT-HBK
E.D. Cal.Aug 21, 2023Background:
- Plaintiff Chantell Gosztyla, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming a Fifth Amendment due process violation based on CDCR’s confiscation of her JPay tablet after a contractor change.
- CDCR switched vendors in 2021 from JPay to Global Tel Link/ViaPath, which uses a different device and charges for streaming services Plaintiff cannot afford.
- Warden Pallares initially allowed inmates to keep JPay tablets by memo, but CDCR later overrode that decision and prohibited retaining JPay devices.
- Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint names Kathleen Allison (CDCR Secretary) and seeks return of the tablet and reimbursement for suit costs; it essentially reasserts the original due-process/takings claim.
- The magistrate judge screened the FAC under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, found California provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy (so no viable federal due-process claim), noted Plaintiff had been warned in a prior screening order, and recommended dismissal for failure to state a claim without further leave to amend.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the confiscation of a JPay tablet states a Fifth Amendment due-process/takings claim | Gosztyla says CDCR’s contract/vendor change and resulting confiscation deprived her of property without due process | CDCR argues California provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy, so no federal due-process claim lies | Dismissed: federal due-process claim fails because state post-deprivation remedies are adequate |
| Whether an inmate has a constitutional right to keep a particular brand/device (JPay) | Gosztyla asserts a right to retain her specific JPay tablet | CDCR argues there is no fundamental or constitutional right to a particular electronic device | Held for defendant: no protected interest in a particular tablet type |
| Whether leave to amend should be granted after prior screening warning | Gosztyla filed a FAC despite prior warning; implies she seeks to proceed on same claim | CDCR/record shows prior warning that claim was defective and advise to pursue state remedies | Denied: dismissal recommended without further leave to amend because Plaintiff already had an opportunity to cure |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (unauthorized intentional deprivation of property does not state a constitutional claim where state provides adequate post-deprivation remedy)
- Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (due-process analysis where state remedies exist; post-deprivation remedies can preclude federal claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard; plausibility requirement for constitutional claims)
- Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813 (state tort remedies under California law provide means to seek return or compensation for property)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (pro se plaintiffs must be given opportunity to amend defective pleadings)