Willmes v. Allenby, et al.

Filing 7

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the Eastern District of California. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 1/26/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2015) [Transferred from cand on 1/26/2015.]

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

HERBERT WILLMES,

Case No. 14-cv-05480-VC (PR)

Plaintiff,
7

ORDER OF TRANSFER
v.

8
9

CLIFF ALLENBY, et al.,
Defendants.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Herbert Willmes is a civil detainee at the Coalinga State Hospital ("Coalinga") proceeding

13

pro se. Willmes is detained pursuant to California's Sexually Violent Predator Act ("SVPA") and

14

has initiated an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, complaining about the conditions of his

15

confinement at Coalinga. Defendants are officials of Coalinga and of the California Department of

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

the province of a habeas petition, not a civil rights action, because they implicate the validity of his

22

detention. See Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579 (2006) (challenges to the lawfulness of

23

confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus); Nelson v.

24

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

25

proceedings are challenged in federal habeas corpus once state remedies have been exhausted).

26

Willmes may challenge the validity of his assessment in this court, but he must do so by way of a

27

habeas petition filed in a separate action from this civil rights case, after exhausting state judicial

28

remedies.

1

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

2

District of California. See 28 U.S.C. 1404(a), 1406(a). In light of this transfer, the pending motion

3

(dkt. 3) to proceed in forma pauperis is deferred to the Eastern District.

4

The Clerk shall transfer this matter immediately.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: January 26, 2015

______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

8
9
10

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