Daniel Davis v. Unknown, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 24, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-02358
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL DAVIS, No. 2:23-cv-02358-DJC-CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 UNKNOWN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a civil detainee proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking 18 relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On September 13, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and 21 Recommendations herein which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice 22 to Plaintiff that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed 23 within fourteen days. (ECF No. 30.) Plaintiff filed Objections on October 31, 2024. 24 (ECF No. 33.) 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 26 304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully 27 reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the majority of the Findings and 28 1 Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis and will adopt 2 the Findings and Recommendations in part. 3 However, the Court disagrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation 4 that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Thirteenth Amendment claim on screening. In 5 particular, Plaintiff, who is detained at CSP-Sac, alleges that he was recently assigned 6 to work as a porter cleaning the housing unit. (See ECF No. 29 at 33.) Plaintiff 7 contends this work assignment is slavery in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment 8 because he is a civil detainee who is being forced to work without pay. (Id.) 9 The Magistrate Judge found that dismissal of this claim was warranted under 10 Phillips v. Angie, No. 5:23-cv-01326-VBF (MAA), 2024 WL 649232 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 11 2024), in which “the court rejected a similar claim brought by a pretrial detainee 12 alleging that he was compelled to perform physical labor at Patton State Hospital in 13 violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.” (Id.) However, Phillips concerned claims 14 brought by a criminal detainee; Plaintiff here is a civil detainee awaiting commitment 15 proceedings pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predators Act. (ECF No. 30 at 3.) The 16 Magistrate Judge fails to address this key distinction, despite the Ninth Circuit’s 17 recognition that “civilly detained persons must be afforded ‘more considerate 18 treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of 19 confinement are designed to punish’” and that, in determining the rights of civil 20 detainees, “[t]he law generally requires a careful balancing of the rights of individuals 21 who are detained for treatment, not punishment, against the state’s interests in 22 institutional security and the safety of those housed at the facility.” Hydrick v. Hunter, 23 500 F.3d 978, 989–90 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 322 24 (1982) (discussing the rights afforded to persons civilly detained as sexually violent 25 predators). 26 Several courts in this district have considered and dismissed similar Thirteenth 27 Amendment claims brought by civil detainees. As those courts found, dismissal was 28 appropriate because the “law is clear that prisoners may be required to work and that 1 any compensation for their labor exists by grace of the state,” and the courts were 2 “unable to find any case authority to justify a digression from this well-established law 3 when the case involves a detainee rather than a prisoner.” Mix v. Rosalez, No. 1:15-cv- 4 01060-DLB (PC), 2016 WL 2907731, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 18, 2016); Williams v. 5 Coleman, No. 1:11–cv–01189–GBC (PC), 2012 WL 6719483, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 26, 6 2012); Allen v. Mayberg, No. 1:06–cv–01801–AWI–GSA (PC), 2008 WL 5135629, at *12 7 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2008). However, in each of those cases, the courts relied on the fact 8 that the plaintiffs in question were not required to work but were rather allowed to 9 participate in vocational training or placement when available. See Mix, 2016 WL 10 2907731, at *2; Williams, 2012 WL 6719483, at *3; Allen, 2008 WL 5135629, at *12. 11 These findings are in contrast to Plaintiff’s allegations that he is required to work as a 12 porter and faces both direct and indirect punitive consequences for any failure to 13 work, including losing “yard, canteen, activities, and visiting privileges,” and “indefinite 14 physical custody in CDCR.” (ECF No. 29 at 33.) 15 Given Plaintiff’s status as a civil, not criminal, detainee, and his allegations that 16 he is required to work without pay or face substantial consequences, the Court finds 17 that Plaintiff’s Thirteenth Amendment claim should proceed past the screening stage. 18 Accordingly, the Court declines to dismiss that claim. However, the Court will adopt 19 the remainder of the Findings and Recommendations. 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 21 1. The Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 30) are ADOPTED in part; 22 2. All claims in the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 29) are DISMISSED 23 except for the following claims: (1) alleged violation of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth 24 Amendment right to substantive due process based on the conditions at 25 CSP-Sac against Defendants Price, Clendenin, Macomber, Lynch and Torres; 26 (2) California Welfare and Institutions Code § 7301 violates the 27 Constitution’s prohibition of bills of attainder against Defendants Price and 28 Clendenin; (3) alleged violation of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment right to 1 procedural due process against Defendants Price and Clendenin based on 2 the alleged lack of procedural protections prior to Plaintiff's transfer from 3 CSH to CSP-Sac; and (4) Plaintiff's assignment to a porter job is slavery in 4 violation of the Thirteenth Amendment against Defendant Torres and Does 5 11-20; and 6 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for all pretrial 7 proceedings. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 | Dated: _September 24, 2025 “Dane A CoD tto— Hon. Daniel alabretta " UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28