Deno Woodis v. King et al
Filing
12
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS that this 1 Action be Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim upon which Relief may be Granted; Objections Due in Thirty Days signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/25/2014. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Objections to F&R due by 7/28/2014. (Sant Agata, S)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
2
3
4
5
6
7
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
Case No. 1:14 cv 00281 AWI GSA
DENO WOODIS,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSEED
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON
WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED
vs.
A. KING, et al.,
Defendants
11
OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
I.
Screening Requirement
Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule
302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited
exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534
U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(a). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s
claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. However, “the
liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not
supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union
Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268
27
(9th Cir. 1982)).
28
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
II.
Plaintiff’s Claims
Plaintiff, a civil detainee in the custody of the California Department of Mental Health
(CDMH) at Coalinga State Hospital (CSH), brings this civil rights action against officials
employed by the CDMH. Plaintiff names as defendants the Executive Director of CSH and the
Director of the CDMH.
Plaintiff’s statement of claim is difficult to discern. Plaintiff’s complaint is a rambling
statement that refers to his status as a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP). Plaintiff indicates
generally that his civil rights have been violated. As relief, Plaintiff does seek release from the
state hospital. Although Plaintiff does not clearly articulate his claim, it is clear that Plaintiff is
challenging the basis of his commitment as a SVP.
A.
Civil Commitment
“[C]ivil commitment for any purpose constitutes a significant deprivation of liberty that
13
requires due process protection.” Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425 (1979). “[I]n certain
14
narrow circumstances,” states may “provide for the forcible civil detainment of people who are
15
unable to control their behavior and who thereby pose a danger to the public health and safety.”
16
Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 357 (1997). Statutes providing for involuntary civil
17
commitment have been “consistently upheld . . . provided the confinement takes place pursuant
18
to proper procedures and evidentiary standards.” Id. (holding that Kansas Sexually Violent
19
Predator Act comports with due process requirements).
20
The Court finds that the post-commitment procedures set forth in the SVPA do not
21
violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although Plaintiff does not
22
specify allege any particular deficiency on the part of evaluators used by CDMH, he does base
23
his claim on the presumption that he is being held illegally.
24
In civil commitment hearings, the factors relevant in determining whether an individual
25
has been afforded sufficient procedural protections under the due process clause are whether the
26
individual received: 1) written notice; 2) a hearing at which the evidence being relief upon for
27
the commitment is disclosed to the detainee; 3) an opportunity at the hearing for the detainee to
28
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
be heard in person, to present testimony and documentary evidence, and to cross-examine
witnesses called by the state; 4) an independent decision maker; 5) reasoned findings of fact; 6)
legal counsel; and 7) effective and timely notice of these rights. Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480,
494-97 (1980); Carty v. Nelson, 426 F.3d 1064, 1074 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff has not alleged
that he was deprived of any of these procedural protections.
Any deficiencies that are alleged on the part of the evaluators do not rise to the level of a
due process violation. The evaluators are not the ultimate decision makers who decide whether
Plaintiff should continue to be detained. Under the SVPA’s scheme, a superior court judge is the
ultimate decision maker. The SVPA scheme permits Plaintiff to file a petition in state court for
conditional or unconditional release without the recommendation the evaluators or CDMH.
11
Thus, even if Plaintiff’s allegations are proven true and the evaluators hired by CDMH based
12
their evaluation upon insufficient methods, the alleged impropriety is of little consequence
13
because Plaintiff can file a petition for release directly to the court and would be entitled to the
14
assistance of an attorney and will have the opportunity to present evidence before a state judge in
15
support of his contention that he is no longer a sexually violent predator within the definition of
16
the SVPA. Presumably, within the petition itself and at any subsequent hearing, Plaintiff will
17
have the opportunity to present evidence in support of his contention that the evaluators’
18
opinions are not worthy of consideration because of their biases. In other words, the SVPA
19
scheme provides for sufficient procedural mechanisms for Plaintiff to challenge the evaluators’
20
conclusions and provides Plaintiff with the opportunity to prove by a preponderance of evidence
21
in a hearing before a state court judge that he no longer qualifies for civil detainment. The Court
22
finds that the procedural protections provided by California’s SVPA do not violate due process.
23
Robinson v. Mayberg, No. 09cv346-IEG(POR), 2010 WL 2196564, *7 (S.D. Cal. May 27,
24
2010)(“the procedures for judicial review, set forth in Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 6605 and 6608,
25
are sufficient to insure that Petitioner’s confinement will not continue beyond the point when he
26
no longer suffers from a mental disorder or is no longer dangerous”).
27
28
3
1
2
3
Given the SVPA’s scheme for obtaining release from civil confinement, Plaintiff has
failed to provide a clear explanation of how he suffered any injury. Even if the Court were to
assume that the evaluators consistently concluded that Plaintiff was unfit for conditional or
4
unconditional release, that does not foreclose Plaintiff’s chance for release. Plaintiff could have
5
utilized the procedures outlined under Section 6608 to challenge the evaluators’ conclusions. If
6
7
8
9
10
11
Plaintiff believed that the evidence used by the evaluators was unreliable, that the evaluators
were biased, or that the actuarial assessment methodologies used were unreliable, Section 6608
provides ample opportunity for Plaintiff to file a petition in state court and present evidence in
support of his contentions. The procedural protections offered by 6608 are constitutionally
sufficient to protect Plaintiff’s liberty interests. Plaintiff’s factual allegations fail to support a
cognizable claim under the Due Process Clause. Because Plaintiff cannot cure this deficiency,
12
the Court dismisses this action without leave to amend.
13
1127 (9th Cir. 2007)(recognizing longstanding rule that leave to amend should be granted even
14
if no request to amend was made unless the court determines that the pleading could not possibly
15
be cured by the allegation of other facts); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir.
16
1987)(pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is absolutely
17
clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment).
18
III.
19
See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,
Conclusion and Recommendation
The Court has screened Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it does not state any claims
20
upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY
21
RECOMMENDED that this action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief
22
could be granted.
23
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
24
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S. C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Within thirty days
25
after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
26
with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
27
Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the
28
4
1
specified time waives all objections to the judge’s findings of fact. See Turner v. Duncan, 158
2
F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1988). Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the
3
right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
Dated:
7
/s/ Gary S. Austin
8
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
June 25, 2014
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?