James Hamilton v. Cliff Allenby et al

Filing 5

ORDER RE CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT by Judge Cormac J. Carney. 1. Plaintiff's official capacity claims for punitive damages are dismissed without leave to amend and with prejudice. 2. The Complaint otherwise is dismissed with leave to amend. If Pla intiff still wishes to pursue this action, he is granted thirty (30) days from the date of this Order within which to file a First Amended Complaint. Failure to file timely a First Amended Complaint in conformity with this Order may result in the dis missal of this action. 3. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff must file a separate writing attempting to show cause, if any there be, why the action should not be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Failure to do so may be deemed consent to the transfer. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. (dml)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

JAMES HAMILTON,

) NO. ED CV 14-2389-CJC(E)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
) ORDER RE CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
)
CLIFF ALLENBY, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)

16
17
18

BACKGROUND

19
20

Plaintiff, a civil detainee allegedly confined at the Coalinga

21

State Hospital pursuant to California's Sexually Violent Predators Act

22

(“SVPA”), California Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq.,

23

brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983.

24

are: (1) Cliff Allenby, Director of the California Department of State

25

Hospitals; (2) Audrey King, Executive Director of Coalinga State

26

Hospital; (3) Tom Voss, former Executive Director of Coalinga State

27

Hospital; (4) Pam Ahlin, former Executive Director of Coalinga State

28

Hospital; and (5) Stephen Mayberg, former Director of the California

Defendants

1

Department of Mental Health.

Plaintiff sues Defendants in their

2

official capacities (Complaint, ¶ 9).

3
4

Plaintiff alleges that he presently is confined at the Coalinga

5

State Hospital pursuant to an order of the San Bernardino Superior

6

Court (id., ¶¶ 11-12).

7

Superior Court ordered under the SVPA that Plaintiff be prohibited

8

from taking part in outpatient treatment (id., ¶ 13).

9

alleges that Defendants continue to retain Plaintiff in custody

Plaintiff alleges that the San Bernardino

Plaintiff

10

despite supposedly knowing that Plaintiff will be subjected to

11

excessively restrictive conditions and will be denied the benefits of

12

outpatient treatment, assertedly on irrational grounds (id.).

13

Defendants allegedly used a supposedly fraudulent assessment scheme to

14

deem Plaintiff likely to commit a sexually violent offense if released

15

to an outpatient program (id., ¶¶ 13-37).

16
17

Plaintiff alleges that the use of the assertedly irrational

18

assessment scheme to deny Plaintiff outpatient treatment violates Due

19

Process and Equal Protection (id., “Claim,” pp. 9-10).

20

allegedly suffered emotional distress and a deprivation of the

21

increased liberty he would have experienced in an outpatient setting

22

(id., “Request for Relief,” p. 11).

23

form of a declaration that the assessment methodology the State uses

24

under the SVPA to determine an individual’s suitability for outpatient

25

treatment is irrational in violation of Due Process (id.).

26

also seeks punitive damages (id.).

27

///

28

///
2

Plaintiff

Plaintiff seeks relief in the

Plaintiff

1

DISCUSSION

2
3

Plaintiff may not sue state officials for damages in their

4

official capacities.

The Eleventh Amendment bars suits in federal

5

court for money damages against state officials in their official

6

capacities.

7

58, 71 (1989); Krainski v. Nevada ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Nevada

8

System of Higher Educ., 616 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir. 2010), cert.

9

denied, 131 S. Ct. 1678 (2011).1

See Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s punitive

10

damages claims against Defendants in their official capacities must be

11

dismissed without leave to amend and with prejudice.

12
13

Plaintiff appears to allege that his SVPA confinement is due to

14

an asserted order of the San Bernardino Superior Court prohibiting

15

Plaintiff from taking part in outpatient treatment.

16

unclear whether Plaintiff challenges a state court judgment, to the

17

extent Plaintiff does so this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction

18

over any such challenge.

19

Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263

20

U.S. 413 (1923); see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries,

21

Inc., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005) ("Rooker-Feldman" doctrine applies to

22

"cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by

23

state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings

Although it is

See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.

24
25
26
27
28

1

The Eleventh Amendment does not bar suit against state
officials in their official capacities for prospective
declaratory or injunctive relief regarding unconstitutional state
action. See Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. at
71 n.10; Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 159-60 (1908); Assoc. des
Eleveurs de Canards et d’Oies due Quebec v. Harris, 729 F.3d 937,
943 (9th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 398 (2014).
3

1

commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those

2

judgments"); Smith v. Hoshino, 2011 WL 5241164, at *4 (E.D. Cal.

3

Nov. 1, 2011) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred challenge to allegedly

4

flawed assessment which resulted in state court’s judgment that

5

plaintiff was a danger to the public under the SVPA).

6
7

Finally, it appears venue may be improper.

Although Plaintiff

8

contends he is confined pursuant to an order of the San Bernardino

9

Superior Court, Plaintiff’s claims apparently concern Defendants’

10

alleged actions in assessing Plaintiff at the Coalinga State Hospital.

11

A civil action may be brought in: (1) a judicial district in which any

12

defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State in which

13

the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a

14

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim

15

occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the

16

action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action

17

may otherwise be brought, any judicial district in which any defendant

18

is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the

19

action.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

20
Plaintiff does not allege that any Defendant is a resident of

21
22

this District.

The Coalinga State Hospital is located in Fresno

23

County in the Eastern District of California.

24

WL 4048776, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2011); 28 U.S.C. § 84(b).

25

appears that a substantial part of the alleged actions or omissions of

26

which Plaintiff complains may have occurred at the Coalinga State

27

Hospital.

28

///
4

See Russ v. Ahlin, 2011
It

1

In the interest of justice, a court in a district in which venue

2

is improper may transfer the action to a district where the action

3

might have been brought.

4

§ 1404(a) (even if venue is proper, a court may transfer the action

5

“[f]or the convenience of parties or witnesses”).

6

transfer the action sua sponte before a responsive pleading is filed.

7

See Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986).

See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); see also 28 U.S.C.

A court may

8
9

ORDER

10
11
12

1.

Plaintiff’s official capacity claims for punitive damages are

dismissed without leave to amend and with prejudice.

13
14

2.

The Complaint otherwise is dismissed with leave to amend.

If

15

Plaintiff still wishes to pursue this action, he is granted thirty

16

(30) days from the date of this Order within which to file a First

17

Amended Complaint.

18

itself, and shall not refer in any manner to any prior complaint or to

19

any other document.

20

claim dismissed without leave to amend in this Order.

21

timely a First Amended Complaint in conformity with this Order may

22

result in the dismissal of this action.

23

F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 909 (2003)

24

(court may dismiss action for failure to follow court order); Simon v.

25

Value Behavioral Health, Inc., 208 F.3d 1073, 1084 (9th Cir.),

26

amended, 234 F.3d 428 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1104

27

(2001), overruled on other grounds, Odom v. Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d

28

541 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 985 (2007) (affirming dismissal

The First Amended Complaint shall be complete in

The First Amended Complaint may not contain any

5

Failure to file

See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291

1

without leave to amend where plaintiff failed to correct deficiencies

2

in complaint, where court had afforded plaintiff opportunities to do

3

so, and where court had given plaintiff notice of the substantive

4

problems with his claims); Plumeau v. School District #40, County of

5

Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 439 (9th Cir. 1997) (denial of leave to amend

6

appropriate where further amendment would be futile).

7
8
9

3.

Within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff

must file a separate writing attempting to show cause, if any there

10

be, why the action should not be transferred to the United States

11

District Court for the Eastern District of California.

12

so may be deemed consent to the transfer.

Failure to do

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated: December 2, 2014

17
18
19

_______________________________
CORMAC J. CARNEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22

Presented this 1st

23

day of December, 2014 by:

24
25
26

_____________/S/________________
CHARLES F. EICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
6