Williams v. Allenby et al

Filing 8

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE.. Signed by Judge James Donato on 7/29/15. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
CHRISTIAN WILLIAMS,

7

Case No. 15-cv-01246-JD

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER OF TRANSFER

9
CLIFF ALLENBY, et al.,

10

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Plaintiff, a civil detainee, has filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He is

13
14

civilly committed pursuant to California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA). See Cal. Welf.

15

& Inst. Code 6600, et seq. Plaintiff is committed in Coalinga, CA which is located in the Eastern

16

District of California. The underlying commitment proceeding originated in San Mateo County,

17

which is in this district.
Plaintiff claims that the “assessment methodology” used by defendants – all current or

18
19

former officials of California’s Department of State Hospitals (formerly known as the Department

20

of Mental Health) – pursuant to SVPA to hold and determine that an individual may not take part

21

in outpatient treatment is unconstitutional. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.1
“‘Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related to imprisonment: a

22
23

petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871,

24

Rev. Stat. § 1979, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges to the lawfulness of confinement or

25

to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus.’” Hill v. McDonough, 547

26

U.S. 573, 579 (2006) (quoting Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004)). “An inmate’s

27
1

28

While plaintiff states he is not seeking to be released from custody, he seeks to be placed in a
non-institutionalized out-patient setting.

1
2

challenge to the circumstances of his confinement, however, may be brought under § 1983.” Id.
Habeas is the “exclusive remedy” for the prisoner who seeks “‘immediate or speedier

3

release’” from confinement. Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2011) (quoting Wilkinson

4

v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005)); see Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 747 (1998); Edwards

5

v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). “Where the

6

prisoner’s claim would not ‘necessarily spell speedier release,’ however, suit may be brought

7

under § 1983.’” Skinner, 131 S. Ct. at 1293 (quoting Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 82). As a

8

consequence, challenges to prison conditions traditionally have been cognizable only via § 1983,

9

while challenges implicating the fact or duration of confinement must be brought through a habeas

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

petition. Docken v. Chase, 393 F.3d 1024, 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 Hubbart v.

13

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

14

challenge under 28 U.S.C. § 2254) with Hydrick v. Hunter, 669 F.3d 937, 941-42 (9th Cir. 2012)

15

(accepting defendants’ qualified immunity defense to civil committees’ § 1983 challenge to their

16

conditions of confinement). Consequently, to the extent that plaintiff seeks relief that would

17

entitle him to immediate or earlier release from his civil commitment, he must file a petition for a

18

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after exhausting state judicial remedies. See

19

Skinner, 131 S. Ct. at 1293; see also Nelson v. Sandritter, 351 F.2d 284, 285 (9th Cir. 1965)

20

(constitutionality of state civil commitment proceedings may be challenged in federal habeas

21

corpus after state judicial remedies have been exhausted). And to the extent that plaintiff seeks

22

relief that may be construed as not necessarily requiring speedier release from his civil

23

commitment, his § 1983 action must be brought in the Eastern District of California, where

24

plaintiff is civilly committed at Coalinga State Hospital and where all named defendants reside.

25

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 84(b), 1391(b).

26
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 will not

3

rule upon plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 29, 2015

6
________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

7
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
3

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

CHRISTIAN WILLIAMS,

Case No. 15-cv-01246-JD

Plaintiff,
5
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6
7

CLIFF ALLENBY, et al.,
Defendants.

8
9
10

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

That on July 29, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing
said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

16
17
18

Christian Williams ID: #423-4 / Unit 1
Coalinga State Hospital
PO Box 5003
Coalinga, CA 93210-5003

19
20
21

Dated: July 29, 2015

22
23

Richard W. Wieking
Clerk, United States District Court

24
25
26
27

By:________________________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO

28
4