Gipson v. Allenby et al

Filing 8

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 1/14/15. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2015)[Transferred from cand on 1/16/2015.]

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOHN GIPSON, Case No. 14-cv-05288-YGR (PR) Plaintiff, 8 ORDER OF TRANSFER v. 9 10 CLIFF ALLENBY, et al., Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, is a civil detainee at the Coalinga State Hospital 13 (“Coalinga”), in Coalinga, California. He is detained pursuant to California’s Sexually Violent 14 Predator Act (“SVPA”). 15 On December 2, 2014, he filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, complaining about the 16 conditions of his confinement at Coalinga. He also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma 17 pauperis as well as another motion entitled, “Motion to File Civil Rights Complaint In Forma 18 Pauperis Without Being Subject to Prison Law Reform Act.” Dkts. 3, 4. 19 Here, Defendants are officials of Coalinga and of the California Department of Corrections 20 and Rehabilitation in Sacramento, California. Both Coalinga and Sacramento lie within the venue 21 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Venue for this case is 22 therefore proper in the Eastern District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 23 Petitioner also complains about the validity of his assessment as a sexually violent predator 24 under the SVPA, which assessment took place in Alameda County. Challenges to the assessment 25 itself are the province of a habeas petition, not a civil rights action, because they implicate the 26 validity of his detention. See Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579 (2006) (challenges to the 27 lawfulness of confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas 28 corpus); Nelson v. Sandritter, 351 F.2d 284, 285 (9th Cir. 1965) (constitutionality of state civil 1 commitment proceedings are challenged in federal habeas corpus once state remedies have been 2 exhausted). Plaintiff may challenge the validity of his assessment in this Court, but he must do so 3 by way of a habeas petition filed in a separate action from the instant civil rights case, after 4 exhausting state judicial remedies. 5 Accordingly, and in the interests of justice, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United 6 States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. 1404(a), 1406(a). The 7 Clerk shall transfer the case forthwith. 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 All remaining motions are TERMINATED on this Court’s docket as no longer pending in this district. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 14, 2015 ______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?