Belyew v. Napa State Hospital

Filing 19

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Show Cause Response due by 9/12/2017. Signed by Judge Nandor J. Vadas on 8/22/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 EUREKA DIVISON 7 8 LISA BELYEW, Case No. 17-cv-3993-NJV (PR) Plaintiff, 9 ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE v. 10 11 NAPA STATE HOSPITAL, United States District Court Northern District of California Defendant. 12 13 14 Plaintiff, a detainee, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This 15 case was transferred from the Eastern District of California. Plaintiff has been granted leave to 16 proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff is currently detained at Butte County Jail in Oroville, CA 17 which lies in the Eastern District of California. There is a criminal prosecution against plaintiff in 18 that county. Plaintiff states that the trial court found her incompetent. Plaintiff states that she will 19 be transferred to Napa State Hospital for treatment and she is concerned she will be forcibly 20 medicated. For relief plaintiff seeks dismissal of the order transporting her to Napa State Hospital, 21 any forced medication be denied, monetary damages and her appointed counsel be relieved so she 22 can represent herself in the criminal trial. 23 In the last five months plaintiff has filed 17 federal cases in the Eastern District of 24 California. Eight of the cases concern the competency hearing and finding of incompetency. See 25 Belyew v. Butte County Superior Court, No. 17-cv-1028 JAM EFB, related to 17-cv-1065, 17-cv- 26 1083, 17-cv-1153, 17-cv-1165, 17-cv-1198, 17-cv-1199, 17-cv-1200. The cases name as 27 defendants the trial judge, defense attorney, medical doctors, court reporter and other individuals 28 involved with the proceedings. Those cases continue in the Eastern District. Plaintiff seeks the 1 same general relief, namely that her incompetency finding be vacated and her placement at Napa 2 State Hospital stopped, no forced medication, release from jail and money damages. 3 The only named defendant in this action is Napa State Hospital. Though plaintiff has not 4 yet been transferred to that facility nor is it clear if she will be subject to forced medication. 5 Plaintiff already proceeds with the earlier filed cases in the Eastern District against the trial court 6 and others involved and seeks the same relief as in this case. Moreover, the prosecution and state 7 court proceedings are ongoing against plaintiff and it appears that plaintiff seeks immediate review 8 of the superior court decision finding her incompetent. 9 Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 extraordinary circumstances. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). Federal courts 12 should not enjoin pending state criminal prosecutions absent a showing of the state’s bad faith or 13 harassment, or a showing that the statute challenged is “flagrantly and patently violative of express 14 constitutional prohibitions.” Younger, 401 U.S. at 46, 53-54 (cost, anxiety and inconvenience of 15 criminal defense not kind of special circumstances or irreparable harm that would justify federal 16 court intervention; statute must be unconstitutional in every “clause, sentence and paragraph, and 17 in whatever manner” it is applied). 18 Under Rooker-Feldman, lower federal courts are without subject matter jurisdiction to 19 review state court decisions, and state court litigants may therefore only obtain federal review by 20 filing a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States. See District of 21 Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486-87 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust 22 Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923); Mothershed v. Justices, 410 F.3d 602, 606 (9th Cir. 2005). The 23 Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies even when the state court judgment is not made by the highest 24 state court, see Worldwide Church of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 893 n.3 (9th Cir. 1986), when 25 federal constitutional issues are at stake, see Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291 (9th Cir. 1995); 26 Mullins v. Oregon, 57 F.3d 789, 792 (9th Cir. 1995), and when the federal review would be of 27 state court review of determinations made by state administrative bodies, see Feldman, 460 U.S. at 28 468, 485-86. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine essentially bars federal district courts “from 2 1 exercising subject matter jurisdiction over a suit that is a de facto appeal from a state court 2 judgment.” Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004); see Skinner v. Switzer, 3 562 U.S. 521, 532 (2011). 4 In order to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, 5 or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence 6 invalid, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed 7 on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to 8 make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas 9 corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994). A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 1983. Id. at 487. 12 “The ripeness doctrine prevents courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from 13 entanglement in theoretical or abstract disagreements that do not yet have a concrete impact on the 14 parties.” 18 Unnamed “John Smith” Prisoners v. Meese, 871 F.2d 881, 883 (9th Cir. 1989). The 15 issue of ripeness may be raised at any time and is not waivable. See Center for Biological 16 Diversity v. Kempthorne, 588 F.3d 701, 708 (9th Cir. 2009). An issue is not ripe for adjudication 17 if it depends on “‘contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed not occur at 18 all.’” 18 Unnamed John Smith Prisoners, 871 F.2d at 883 (quoting Thomas v. Union Carbide 19 Agriculture Products, 473 U.S. 568, 580-81 (1985)); see, e.g., United States v. Braren, 338 F.3d 20 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2003) (case not ripe because agency action not final; factual development 21 needed to determine what standard agency would ultimately apply). 22 Venue generally is proper in a judicial district in which: (1) any defendant resides, if all 23 defendants are residents of the state in which the district is located; (2) a substantial part of the 24 events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the 25 subject of the action is situated; or (3) any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction, 26 if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 27 28 3 CONCLUSION 1 2 1. Within twenty-one (21) days plaintiff must show cause why this case should not be 3 dismissed as barred by Younger and Rooker-Feldman, why her request for monetary compensation 4 is not barred by Heck and why this case is not improperly brought in this district because she is not 5 yet in this district and proceeds with the other earlier cases in the Eastern District of California. 6 Failure to file a response will result in the dismissal of this case. 7 2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of 9 Change of Address,” and must comply with the court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so 10 may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 8 Procedure 41(b). 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 22, 2017 ________________________ NANDOR J. VADAS United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?