1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CYMEYON HILL, No. 2:20-cv-0145 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER and 14 MICHAEL SAVAGE, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendant. 16 17 I. Introduction 18 Plaintiff is a civil detainee1 proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint filed pursuant 19 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 1915. This action is referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 21 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c). For the following reasons, plaintiff’s request to 22 proceed in forma pauperis is granted; however, the undersigned recommends that this action be 23 1 Although plaintiff states he is currently incarcerated in Salinas Valley State Prison, his further 24 assertion he is a civil detainee is supported by the fact that the Inmate Locator Website operated by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) does not identify 25 plaintiff as a CDCR inmate. See http://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/ (Inmate Locator website 26 operated by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation). This Court may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate determination by sources whose accuracy 27 cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201; see also City of Sausalito v. O'Neill, 386 F.3d 1186, 1224 n.2 (9th Cir. 2004) (“We may take judicial notice of a record of a state agency 28 not subject to reasonable dispute.”). 1 dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim. 2 II. In Forma Pauperis Application 3 Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit and prison trust account statement that make the 4 showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See ECF No. 2. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request to 5 proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 6 III. Screening of Plaintiff’s Complaint 7 A. Legal Standards 8 Although plaintiff is a civil detainee rather than a prisoner, he is proceeding in forma 9 pauperis and his complaint is therefore subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 10 Under § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has 11 raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” “fail[] to state a claim upon which relief 12 may be granted,” or “seek[] monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 13 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. 14 Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 15 1984). 16 “A document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed,’ and ‘a pro se complaint, however 17 inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by 18 lawyers.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 19 106 (1976) (internal quotation marks omitted)). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e) (“Pleadings shall be 20 so construed as to do justice.”). Additionally, a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the 21 deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies 22 cannot be cured by amendment. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987). 23 B. Plaintiff’s Allegations 24 Plaintiff sues Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Michael Savage following his 25 denial of plaintiff’s application for release under California Penal Code section 1026(a) 26 (authorizing a person who has been committed to a state facility upon a finding of not guilty by 27 reason of insanity to apply for release in the superior court that issued the commitment order). 28 Plaintiff alleges that Judge Savage denied his application “with no clear explanation” and failed 1 to respond when plaintiff resubmitted his application. ECF No. 1 at 3. Plaintiff asserts that Judge 2 Savage’s conduct has deprived him of due process and his “physical liberty to access the courts.” 3 Id. Plaintiff seeks $750,000 in damages and a lien on defendant’s retirement fund. 4 C. Analysis 5 Plaintiff’s claims against the sole defendant, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge 6 Savage, are barred by judicial immunity. “Like other forms of official immunity, judicial 7 immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages.” Mireles v. 8 Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991). “[T]he necessary inquiry in determining whether a defendant judge 9 is immune from suit is whether at the time he took the challenged action he had jurisdiction over 10 the subject matter before him. . . . . [T]he scope of the judge’s jurisdiction must be construed 11 broadly where the issue is the immunity of the judge. A judge will not be deprived of immunity 12 because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; 13 rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the clear absence of all 14 jurisdiction.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (internal citations and quotation 15 marks omitted). 16 Here plaintiff does not assert that defendant was without jurisdiction to render his decision 17 on plaintiff’s application, only that defendant failed to adequately explain his decision, then failed 18 to consider plaintiff’s resubmission of his application. 19 To the extent plaintiff is attempting to challenge his continued civil commitment, his 20 federal remedy is a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, after he 21 exhausts state judicial remedies. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Civilly 22 committed persons may pursue habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 to challenge their 23 involuntary civil commitment. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 176 (2001) (stating that a state 24 court order of civil commitment satisfies Section 2254’s “in custody” requirement); Huftile v. 25 Miccio–Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1139–40 (9th Cir.2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1166 (2006) 26 (“[D]etainees under an involuntary civil commitment scheme ... may use a § 2254 habeas petition 27 to challenge a term of confinement.”).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CYMEYON HILL, No. 2:20-cv-0145 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER and 14 MICHAEL SAVAGE, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendant. 16 17 I. Introduction 18 Plaintiff is a civil detainee1 proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint filed pursuant 19 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 1915. This action is referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 21 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c). For the following reasons, plaintiff’s request to 22 proceed in forma pauperis is granted; however, the undersigned recommends that this action be 23 1 Although plaintiff states he is currently incarcerated in Salinas Valley State Prison, his further 24 assertion he is a civil detainee is supported by the fact that the Inmate Locator Website operated by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) does not identify 25 plaintiff as a CDCR inmate. See http://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/ (Inmate Locator website 26 operated by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation). This Court may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate determination by sources whose accuracy 27 cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201; see also City of Sausalito v. O'Neill, 386 F.3d 1186, 1224 n.2 (9th Cir. 2004) (“We may take judicial notice of a record of a state agency 28 not subject to reasonable dispute.”). 1 dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim. 2 II. In Forma Pauperis Application 3 Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit and prison trust account statement that make the 4 showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See ECF No. 2. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request to 5 proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 6 III. Screening of Plaintiff’s Complaint 7 A. Legal Standards 8 Although plaintiff is a civil detainee rather than a prisoner, he is proceeding in forma 9 pauperis and his complaint is therefore subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 10 Under § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has 11 raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” “fail[] to state a claim upon which relief 12 may be granted,” or “seek[] monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 13 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. 14 Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 15 1984). 16 “A document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed,’ and ‘a pro se complaint, however 17 inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by 18 lawyers.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 19 106 (1976) (internal quotation marks omitted)). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e) (“Pleadings shall be 20 so construed as to do justice.”). Additionally, a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the 21 deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies 22 cannot be cured by amendment. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987). 23 B. Plaintiff’s Allegations 24 Plaintiff sues Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Michael Savage following his 25 denial of plaintiff’s application for release under California Penal Code section 1026(a) 26 (authorizing a person who has been committed to a state facility upon a finding of not guilty by 27 reason of insanity to apply for release in the superior court that issued the commitment order). 28 Plaintiff alleges that Judge Savage denied his application “with no clear explanation” and failed 1 to respond when plaintiff resubmitted his application. ECF No. 1 at 3. Plaintiff asserts that Judge 2 Savage’s conduct has deprived him of due process and his “physical liberty to access the courts.” 3 Id. Plaintiff seeks $750,000 in damages and a lien on defendant’s retirement fund. 4 C. Analysis 5 Plaintiff’s claims against the sole defendant, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge 6 Savage, are barred by judicial immunity. “Like other forms of official immunity, judicial 7 immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages.” Mireles v. 8 Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991). “[T]he necessary inquiry in determining whether a defendant judge 9 is immune from suit is whether at the time he took the challenged action he had jurisdiction over 10 the subject matter before him. . . . . [T]he scope of the judge’s jurisdiction must be construed 11 broadly where the issue is the immunity of the judge. A judge will not be deprived of immunity 12 because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; 13 rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the clear absence of all 14 jurisdiction.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (internal citations and quotation 15 marks omitted). 16 Here plaintiff does not assert that defendant was without jurisdiction to render his decision 17 on plaintiff’s application, only that defendant failed to adequately explain his decision, then failed 18 to consider plaintiff’s resubmission of his application. 19 To the extent plaintiff is attempting to challenge his continued civil commitment, his 20 federal remedy is a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, after he 21 exhausts state judicial remedies. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Civilly 22 committed persons may pursue habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 to challenge their 23 involuntary civil commitment. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 176 (2001) (stating that a state 24 court order of civil commitment satisfies Section 2254’s “in custody” requirement); Huftile v. 25 Miccio–Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1139–40 (9th Cir.2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1166 (2006) 26 (“[D]etainees under an involuntary civil commitment scheme ... may use a § 2254 habeas petition 27 to challenge a term of confinement.”). A civil rights action under Section 1983 is the proper 28 vehicle to challenge conditions of confinement; a habeas corpus petition is the sole federal 1 vehicle for challenging the fact or duration of confinement. Preiser, 411 U.S at 498-99. 2 Moreover, plaintiff’s pursuit of damages based on his continuing commitment is barred. 3 In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the United States Supreme Court held that when a 4 state prisoner seeks damages in a Section 1983 suit, the district court must consider whether a 5 judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or 6 sentence. If it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless plaintiff can demonstrate that the 7 conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. Id. at 487. The Ninth Circuit has held that 8 the “favorable termination” rule of Heck applies equally to Section 1983 claims that imply the 9 invalidity of a plaintiff’s civil commitment. Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th 10 Cir. 2005). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that “Heck’s favorable termination rule was intended to 11 prevent a person in custody from using § 1983 to circumvent the more stringent requirements for 12 habeas corpus,” and thus applies not only to prisoners, but to other persons who are “in custody” 13 and thus have access to habeas relief. Id. at 1139. Because civilly committed persons have 14 access to habeas relief to obtain release from custody, Heck requires a civilly committed person 15 to invalidate his civil commitment before pursuing a Section 1983 damages claim implying that 16 his commitment is invalid. Id. at 1140. Unless plaintiff succeeds in invalidating his civil 17 commitment in state proceedings or by federal habeas petition, he may not pursue Section 1983 18 claims premised on its alleged invalidity. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. 19 Finally, plaintiff’s claim he has been denied access to the courts is without merit. To state 20 a denial of access claim under the First Amendment, a prisoner must plausibly allege that he 21 suffered an “actual injury” as a result of the defendant’s challenged conduct that hindered 22 plaintiff’s efforts to pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351-55 23 (1996). The court finds plaintiff’s attempted legal claims in this case to be patently frivolous. 24 This court is persuaded that plaintiff is unable to allege any facts, based upon the 25 circumstances he challenges, that would state a cognizable claim and, therefore, that amendment 26 of the complaint would be futile. 27 //// 28 //// 1 IV. Conclusion 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. 4 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to randomly assign a district judge to this action. 5 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without leave to 6 || amend for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, see 28 U.S.C. 8 7 | 1915¢e)(2)(B)Ci). 8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 9 | assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within 21 days after 10 | being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 11 | the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 12 || Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within 13 | the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 14 | F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 || DATED: January 30, 2020 ~ 16 Chtten— Lhane ALLISON CLAIRE 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28