Goldberg v. Digiacintois

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE (and granting Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis). Signed by Judge Hon. Lucy H. Koh on 5/27/2015. (sms, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/29/2015)

f' I L I!! 0

1
2

MAY 2 q t015

3

ntCHA~~· WI~K.!NG
CLE~ ~·
T~p cous~
NORTHE
I I
CAUF

rat Jsf

4

5
6

7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

JEFFREY GOLDBERG,

)

Case No. C 15-0169 LHK (PR)

)
12

Plaintiff,

)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

)
13

v.

)

)
)
)
)

14

JOHN DIGIACINTOIS,

15

Defendant.
_________________________ )

16
Plaintiff, a California state civil detainee proceeding prose, filed this civil rights action

17
18

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is currently being housed at Coalinga State Hospital under

19

California's Sexually Violent Predator Act ("SVPA"). Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma

20

pauperis is GRANTED. 1 For the reasons stated below, plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED

21

without prejudice.

22

Ill

23

Ill

24

Ill

25
26
27
28

1

The financial reporting and full filing fee requirements of28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) & (b)
apply only to "prisoners," i.e., individuals who, at the time they seek to file their civil actions,
are detained as a result of being accused of, convicted of, or sentenced for criminal offenses, and
therefore do not apply to individuals civilly committed under SVPA. See Page v. Torrey, 201
F.3d 1136, 1139-40 (9th Cir. 2000).
Order of Dismissal
P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.15\Goldberg 169dis. wpd

DISCUSSION
2

A.

3

Standard of Review
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

4

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See

5

28 U.S.C. § I9I5A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss

6

any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or

7

seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C.

8

§ I9I5A(b)(l), (2). Prose pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v.

9

Pacifica Police Dep't., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).

IO

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:

II

(I) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws ofthe United States was violated, and (2) that

I2

the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v.

13

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42,48 (1988).

I4
I5
I6
I7
I8
I9
20
2I
22

B.

Legal Claims
Plaintiff names as defendant, John Digiacintois, a Supervising Attorney at the San Mateo

County Private Defender Program. Defendant was the direct supervisor of plaintiff's appointed
defense counsel at plaintiff's 2010 or 20 II SVPA trial. Plaintiff claims that defendant violated
plaintiff's civil rights by failing to adequately supervise and train plaintiff's attorney. According
to plaintiff, defendant's failure led to plaintiff's receiving ineffective assistance of counsel in the
SVPA proceedings, which in tum led to plaintiff's civil commitment. In addition, plaintiff
claims that the SVPA was being implemented in a way that violated plaintiff's due process rights
and right to equal protection based on a "fraudulent assessment scheme." Plaintiff also alleges

23
that plaintiff was "irrationally denied the substantive benefits of outpatient treatment" in lieu of
24
civil commitment. Plaintiff asserts that defendant knew that the Department of State Hospitals
25
used faulty assessment schemes to determine whether plaintiff was likely tore-offend, and that
26
defendant failed to properly train plaintiff's attorney to successfully investigate and challenge
27
28
Order of Dismissal
P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.I5\Goldberg 169dis.wpd

2

the Department of State Hospitals' assessment schemes. Plaintiff seeks ten million dollars in

2
3

damages and a declaratory judgment.
As an initial matter, the court notes that plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint on

4

November 25, 20I4, against the Director of the California Department of State Hospitals and

5

several Coalinga State Hospital Directors. 2 See Goldberg v. Allenby, No. I5-cv-OOII2 LJO MJS

6

(PC) (E.D. Cal. 20I4) ("Goldberg f'). The substance of plaintiff's claims in Goldberg I is the

7

same as the claims in the underlying case, i.e., that the assessment schemes were fraudulent and

8

the denial of outpatient treatment violated plaintiff's constitutional rights. On February 9, 20 I5,

9

the court in Goldberg I dismissed plaintiff's claims, concluding that they were barred under

IO
II
I2
13
I4
I5
I6
I7
I8
I9
20
2I

22

Heckv. Humphrey, 5I2 U.S. 477,486-87 (1994).
Similarly here, plaintiff's claims for monetary damages and declaratory relief are not
permitted. The United States Supreme Court has held that to recover damages for an allegedly
unconstitutional confinement, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would
render the confinement invalid, a plaintiff must prove that the judgment has been reversed on
direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to
make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ ofhabeas
corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 5I2 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). The rationale of Heck applies to
detainees under an involuntary civil commitment scheme such as California's SVPA where
habeas relief is available. See Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 4IO F.3d I136, II40 (9th Cir. 2005).
Such a detainee's claim for damages and declaratory relief must be dismissed without prejudice
under the rationale of Heck if success on the claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of the
detainee's civil commitment. See id at II40-42. Here, ifplaintiffwere successful on his claims

23
that his civil commitment violates his rights to due process and equal protection, his success
24
would necessarily imply the invalidity of his commitment. Accordingly, plaintiff's claims are
25
dismissed without prejudice until and unless his civil commitment is overturned or otherwise
26
27
28

2

Plaintiff initially filed that case in the Northern District of California. It was
subsequently transferred to the Eastern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § I406(a).
Order of Dismissal
P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.l5\Goldbergl69dis. wpd

3

[

called into question. See, e.g., Graves v. Supervising Deputy, No. 15-cv-0548 JLT PC, 2015 WL
2

1680103 (E.D. Cal. April14, 2015) (report and recommendation dismissing similar claims for

3

lack of jurisdiction and under Heck); Atualevao v. Bellas, No. 15-0394 WHA (N.D. Cal. April1,

4

20 15) (dismissing similar claims under Heck).

5
6
7
8
9

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set out above, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk
shall terminate all pending motions and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

5f&1

/20 Is-

I

LUCY
KOH
United States District Judge

10
11

12
13

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order of Dismissal
P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.I5\Goldberg 169dis. wpd

4