Tomas v. Allenby et al

Filing 5

ORDER OF TRANSFER. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 1/20/15. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2015) [Transferred from cand on 1/22/2015.]

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

OAKLAND DIVISION

6
7

SEMPLICO TOMAS,
Plaintiff,

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 14-5087 PJH (PR)

vs.

ORDER OF TRANSFER

CLIFF ALLENBY, et. al.,
Defendants.
/

12
Plaintiff, a civil detainee, has filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He is
13
civilly committed pursuant to California's Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA). See Cal.
14
Welf. & Inst. Code 6600, et seq. Plaintiff is committed in Coalinga, CA which is located in
15
the Eastern District of California. The underlying commitment proceeding originated in
16
Santa Cruz County, which is in this district.
17
Plaintiff claims that the "assessment methodology" used by defendants – all current
18
or former officials of California's Department of State Hospitals (formerly known as the
19
Department of Mental Health) – pursuant to SVPA to hold and determine that an individual
20
may not take part in outpatient treatment is unconstitutional. Plaintiff seeks declaratory
21
relief and damages in the amount of $10,000,000.
22
"‘Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related to
23
imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a complaint under the
24
Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. § 1979, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges to
25
the lawfulness of confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of
26
habeas corpus.'" Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579 (2006) (quoting Muhammad v.
27
Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004)). "An inmate's challenge to the circumstances of his
28
confinement, however, may be brought under § 1983." Id.

1

Habeas is the "exclusive remedy" for the prisoner who seeks "‘immediate or

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

have been cognizable only via § 1983, while challenges implicating the fact or duration of

9

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

U.S.C. §§ 84(b), 1391(b).

27
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

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 20, 2015.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.14\Tomas5087.trn.wpd

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