West v. King et al

Filing 5

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to Eastern District of California. Signed by Judge Nandor J. Vadas on 1/13/2015. (njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2015) [Transferred from cand on 1/13/2015.]

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

EUREKA DIVISION

6
7

GARY WEST,
No. C 14-5279 NJV (PR)
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER OF TRANSFER
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

v.
AUDREY KING, et. al.,
Defendants.
/

12
13

Plaintiff, a civil detainee, has filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He is

14

civilly committed pursuant to California's Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA). See Cal.

15

Welf. & Inst. Code 6600, et seq. Plaintiff is committed in Coalinga, CA which is located in

16

the Eastern District of California. The underlying commitment proceeding originated in San

17

Francisco County, which is in this district.

18

Plaintiff claims that the "assessment methodology" used by defendants – all current

19

or former officials of California's Department of State Hospitals (formerly known as the

20

Department of Mental Health) – pursuant to SVPA to hold and determine that an individual

21

may not take part in outpatient treatment is unconstitutional. Plaintiff seeks declaratory

22

relief and damages in the amount of $10,000,000.

23

"‘Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related to

24

imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a complaint under the

25

Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. § 1979, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges to

26

the lawfulness of confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of

27

habeas corpus.'" Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579 (2006) (quoting Muhammad v.

28

Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004)). "An inmate's challenge to the circumstances of his

1
2

confinement, however, may be brought under § 1983." Id.
Habeas is the "exclusive remedy" for the prisoner who seeks "‘immediate or

3

speedier release'" from confinement. Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2011)

4

(quoting Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005)); see Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S.

5

740, 747 (1998); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411

6

U.S. 475, 500 (1973). "Where the prisoner's claim would not ‘necessarily spell speedier

7

release,' however, suit may be brought under § 1983.'" Skinner, 131 S. Ct. at 1293 (quoting

8

Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 82). As a consequence, challenges to prison conditions traditionally

9

have been cognizable only via § 1983, while challenges implicating the fact or duration of
confinement must be brought through a habeas petition. Docken v. Chase, 393 F.3d 1024,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

1026 (9th Cir. 2004).

12

Although plaintiff is a civilly committed patient, rather than a criminally convicted

13

prisoner, the habeas versus § 1983 proper remedy distinction also applies. Compare

14

Hubbart v. Knapp, 379 F.3d 773, 779-81 (9th Cir. 2004) (upholding constitutionality of

15

SVPA against habeas challenge under 28 U.S.C. § 2254) with Hydrick v. Hunter, 669 F.3d

16

937, 941-42 (9th Cir. 2012) (accepting defendants' qualified immunity defense to civil

17

committees' § 1983 challenge to their conditions of confinement). Consequently, to the

18

extent that plaintiff seeks relief that would entitle him to immediate or earlier release from

19

his civil commitment, he must file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §

20

2254 after exhausting state judicial remedies. See Skinner, 131 S. Ct. at 1293; see also

21

Nelson v. Sandritter, 351 F.2d 284, 285 (9th Cir. 1965) (constitutionality of state civil

22

commitment proceedings may be challenged in federal habeas corpus after state judicial

23

remedies have been exhausted). And to the extent that plaintiff seeks relief that may be

24

construed as not necessarily requiring speedier release from his civil commitment, his

25

§ 1983 action must be brought in the Eastern District of California, where plaintiff is civilly

26

committed at Coalinga State Hospital and where all named defendants reside. See 28

27

U.S.C. §§ 84(b), 1391(b).

28
2

1

Accordingly, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the

2

Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). In view of the transfer, the Court

3

will not rule upon plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 13, 2015.
NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
EUREKA DIVISION

7
8
9

Plaintiff,

10
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

No.1:14-CV-5279 NJV

GARY WEST,

v.

12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

AUDREY KING, et al,

13

Defendants.

/

14
15
16
17

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that on January 13, 2015, I served a true and correct copy
of the attached by placing said copies in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed
below, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail.

18
19
20

Gary West
000-231-1
Coalinga State Hospital
P O Box 5003
Coalinga, CA 93210-5003

21
22
23

/s/ Linn Van Meter
Linn Van Meter
Administrative Law Clerk to the
Honorable Nandor J. Vadas

24
25
26
27
28
4