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.]

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