(PS) Ashford v. Yee
2:19-cv-02358
E.D. Cal.May 13, 2020Background:
- Plaintiff (pro se) sued California State Controller Betty Yee and Comerica entities after discovering his Direct Express account (Social Security deposits from 2011) had a zero balance when he first accessed it in 2017.
- Plaintiff alleges the funds were transferred to the California Controller under the California Unclaimed Property Law (UPL) and complains of "Confiscation of Social Security Entitlements."
- He cited 42 U.S.C. § 4017(a) and "U.S. Code § 407(a)(b)," but the complaint does not identify the correct statutory bases or specific wrongdoing by each defendant.
- Plaintiff contacted the Controller’s office and said he wanted to file a claim, but the complaint does not allege he actually filed a UPL claim decision challenge in state court.
- Case was transferred from the Northern District of Texas; the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and dismissed for failure to state a claim, granting leave to amend with instructions on pleading and procedural requirements.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of 42 U.S.C. § 4017(a) | Ashford invokes § 4017(a) as a federal basis | § 4017(a) (NFIP funding) is irrelevant | Court: § 4017(a) is inapplicable and not a cognizable basis |
| Protection of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. § 407 | Ashford contends Social Security funds were unlawfully taken | Defendants: plaintiff fails to allege transfer/assignment or that funds were seized by legal process | Court: allegations do not show a § 407 violation; statutory protection not shown to be breached |
| Challenge to escheat under California UPL | Ashford asserts funds were escheated improperly and Controller obstructed recovery | Defendants: UPL governs escheat; claim procedures and state-court remedy exist | Court: Plaintiff failed to allege he filed the required UPL claim or pursued the state-court remedy; challenge is not ripe/adequately pleaded |
| Pleading sufficiency and remedy | Ashford seeks relief without detailed factual or legal framing | Defendants move (by screening) that pleadings lack factual support and proper legal theory | Court: Dismiss for failure to state a claim but grants leave to amend with precise pleading and jurisdictional instructions |
Key Cases Cited
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se pleadings liberally construed)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957) (notice pleading standard discussed)
- Taylor v. Yee, 780 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2015) (challenge to Controller’s post‑escheat procedure requires state-court exhaustion)
- Azure Limited v. I‑Flow Corp., 46 Cal.4th 1323 (2009) (UPL gives state custody of unclaimed property until owner claims it)
- Crawford v. Gould, 56 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 1995) (purpose of § 407 is to protect beneficiaries from creditors)