Giang Vu v. Santa Clara County Superior Court, et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: November 21, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-08758
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GIANG VU, Case No. 25-cv-08758-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMSISAL 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 3

10 SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff has filed a pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint (Dkt. No. 1) 14 is now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff has been granted 15 leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. 16 DISCUSSION 17 A. Standard of Review 18 Plaintiff appears to be a civil detainee. See generally Dkt. No. 1. Because he is 19 proceeding in forma pauperis, his complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 20 1915(e)(2)(B). Under § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if 21 the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” “fail[ ] to state a claim 22 upon which relief may be granted,” or “seek[ ] monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 23 from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an 24 arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Pro se 25 pleadings must be liberally construed. See United States v. Qazi, 975 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 26 2020). 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 1 necessary; the statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the 2 grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). 3 While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands more than an unadorned, 4 the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009). 5 A pleading that offers only labels and conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 6 cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement does not suffice. Id. 7 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 8 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 9 the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. 10 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 11 B. Complaint 12 Plaintiff has sued Santa Clara County Superior Court, the Santa Clara County Justice 13 System, Kern County State Hospital, and Napa State Hospital. Plaintiff alleges that since 14 sometime in 2021 he has been in the custody of either Santa Clara County or Napa State Hospital, 15 despite no evidence, no witnesses, and no victim; and despite the case being dismissed. Plaintiff 16 states that he not been allowed bail. Plaintiff further states that he has had four attorneys since 17 2021, all of whom have failed to adequately represent him. Plaintiff requests the Court’s help, and 18 appears to be seeking release from custody. See generally Dkt. No. 1. 19 The Court DISMISSES this action because Plaintiff is seeking release from custody. To 20 seek relief from custody, Plaintiff must file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, not a civil rights 21 action. A civil rights action under Section 1983 is the proper vehicle to challenge conditions of 22 confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 498-99 (1973) (“1983 action is a proper remedy 23 for a state prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his prison life, 24 but not to the fact or length of his custody”). Habeas is the “exclusive remedy” for the prisoner 25 who seeks “‘immediate or speedier release’” from confinement. Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 26 526 (2011) (quoting Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005)); see also Hill v. McDonough, 27 547 U.S. 573, 579 (2006) (“‘Challenges to the lawfulness of confinement or to particulars 1 749, 750 (2004)). Plaintiff appears to be in the custody of Napa State Hospital pursuant to a civil 2 || commitment. A civilly committed person may challenge their involuntary civil commitment by 3 || filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Duncan v. Walker, 533 4 |} US. 167, 176 (2001) (civil commitment satisfies Section 2254’s “in custody” requirement); 5 || Huftile v. Miccio—Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1139-40 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[D]etainees under an 6 || involuntary civil commitment scheme . .. may use a § 2254 habeas petition to challenge a term of 7 confinement.”). The Court therefore DISMISSES this action without prejudice to seeking relief 8 || ina habeas action. 9 CONCLUSION 10 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice to seeking 11 relief in a habeas action. The Clerk shall send Plaintiff two copies of the Court’s form habeas 12 || petition. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. The Clerk shall close 13 the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 15 || Dated: 11/21/2025

5 HAYWOOD S, GILLIAM, JR. nited States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28