Marshall

Johnson v. Marshall

Good Law
84 F. App'x 906
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 22, 2003No. 03-16427; D.C. No. CV-02-6183-AWI/SMSCalifornia278 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Andre Johnson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal for failure to state a claim of his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that deductions from his inmate trust account for payment of his restitution obligation violated his due process rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, see Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998), and affirm.

California Penal Code § 2085.5 requires the California Director of Corrections to make deductions from the wages and trust account deposits of prisoners for payment of restitution obligations. Johnson cannot state a due process claim because the statute is rationally related to legitimate state interests in compensating crime victims. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 , 107 S.Ct. 2254 , 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987).

Johnson claims that the defendant prison officials’ deductions from his account violated his procedural due process rights because the sentencing court did not order the deductions and did not give him notice that restitution would be satisfied in this manner. This claim fails because the deductions were effected by a valid act of the California…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.