Edward Rodriguez v. King et al

Filing 9

ORDER OF TRANSFER. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on December 16, 2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2014) [Transferred from cand on 12/18/2014.]

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

EDWARD RODRIGUEZ,

Case No. 14-cv-04545-JST (PR)

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER OF TRANSFER

9
10

AUDREY KING, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Plaintiff is a civil detainee at the Coalinga State Hospital ("Coalinga") proceeding pro se.

14

He is detained pursuant to California's Sexually Violent Predator Act ("SVPA"). He has filed a

15

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, complaining about the conditions of his confinement at

16

Coalinga. Defendants are officials of Coalinga and of the California Department of Corrections

17

and Rehabilitation in Sacramento. Both Coalinga and Sacramento lie within the venue of the

18

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Venue for this case is therefore

19

proper in the Eastern District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

20

Petitioner also complains about the validity of his assessment as a sexually violent predator

21

under the SVPA, which assessment took place in Santa Clara County. Challenges to the

22

assessment itself are the province of a habeas petition, not a civil rights action, because they

23

implicate the validity of his detention. See Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579 (2006)

24

(challenges to the lawfulness of confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the

25

province of habeas corpus); Nelson v. Sandritter, 351 F.2d 284, 285 (9th Cir. 1965)

26

(constitutionality of state civil commitment proceedings are challenged in federal habeas corpus

27

once state remedies have been exhausted). Plaintiff may challenge the validity of his assessment

28

in this court, but he must do so by way of a habeas petition filed in a separate action from the

1

instant civil rights case, after exhausting state judicial remedies.

2

Accordingly, and in the interests of justice, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United

3

States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. 1404(a), 1406(a). In

4

light of this transfer, the pending motion (dkt. 6) to proceed in forma pauperis is deferred to the

5

Eastern District.

6

The Clerk shall transfer this matter forthwith.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

Dated: December 16, 2014
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2