1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM STEPHENSON, No. 2:20-cv-2227 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF PLACER, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a civil detainee proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983 together with a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2). 19 Plaintiff has not submitted either filing on a proper form. 20 Also before this court is plaintiff’s request that the court vacate its order issued November 21 18, 2020, which directed plaintiff to refile his in forma pauperis application and civil rights action 22 on the forms that the court provided to him. (See ECF No. 6). For the reasons stated below, the 23 court will deny plaintiff’s request and grant him in forma pauperis status. In addition, the court 24 shall order that the complaint be served on the sole named defendant, County of Placer. 25 I. IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION 26 Although plaintiff has not submitted his in forma pauperis request on a proper court form, 27 a review of the document plaintiff has submitted provides sufficient information to enable the 28 //// 1 court to determine his indigent status. (See generally ECF No. 2). Therefore, in the interest of 2 expediency, plaintiff’s in forma pauperis motion shall be granted. 3 As a civil detainee, plaintiff is not subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s (“PLRA”) 4 requirements regarding the payment of administrative fees.1 See Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 5 1140 (9th Cir. 2000). Therefore, an order directing the custodial hospital to collect filing fees 6 from plaintiff’s trust account will not issue with this order. 7 II. LEGAL STANDARD 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).2 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); Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d 774. 775 (9th Cir. 1996). 15 “A document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed,’ and ‘a pro se complaint, however 16 inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by 17 lawyers.’ ” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 18 106 (1976) (internal quotation marks omitted)). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e) (“Pleadings shall be 19 so construed as to do justice.”). Additionally, a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the 20 deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity to amend, unless the complaint's deficiencies 21 cannot be cured by amendment. See Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing 22 Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987) superseded on other grounds by statute 23 as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)). 24 1 In addition, civil detainees are not subject to the PLRA’s administrative exhaustion 25 requirement. See Page, 201 F.3d at 1140. 2 See Koch v. Price, No. 1:18-cv-01693-DAD-SAB (PC), 2019 WL 201525, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26 15, 2019) (stating complaint of civil detainee subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 27 1915(e)(2)(B)); see also McClellan v. Marshall, No. CV 08-2293 JFW (JTL), 2008 WL 1902726, at *1 n.1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2008) (stating whether prisoner or civil detainee, court screens 28 complaint under same standard pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1)). 1 III. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 2 Plaintiff, a civil detainee currently held at Coalinga State Hospital, names Placer County 3 as the sole defendant in this action. (See ECF No. 1 at 1, 3). During the period in question, 4 plaintiff, having previously been committed as a sexually violent predator under California 5 Welfare & Institutions Code § 6604, was awaiting a revocation hearing for having allegedly 6 violated his terms of conditional release. (See id. at 4). 7 Plaintiff contends that from May 2017 to April 2018, while in the custody of the Placer 8 County Sheriff’s Department as a civil detainee, he had continuous treatment under the Sexually 9 Violent Predator Act (“SVPA”). (See ECF No. 1 at 7). As a result, he argues that his Fourteenth 10 Amendment rights were violated when: (1) he was housed in administrative segregation for three 11 weeks and deprived of privileges;3 (2) he was housed with non-sex offender criminal detainees, 12 and (3) he was removed from the secure housing of administrative segregation without a requisite 13 court order that waived his secure housing placement. (See id. at 4-6, 9). 14 More specifically, plaintiff argues that his housing conditions, which were more restrictive 15 than those in other protective custody and general population units, violated the law. (See ECF 16 No. 1 at 4-5). He further contends that his placement with inmates who had been “committed 17 under the criminal process” as well as with “non-sex offenders” put his life “at risk of serious 18 harm” and “violated the law” as the placements were done for no legitimate, lawful purpose and 19 therefore, were unlawfully punitive. (See generally id. at 5-6). According to plaintiff, these were 20 official policies, customs and practices of defendant Placer County, and they caused him harm in 21 violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. (See id. at 3). 22 Plaintiff requests damages in the amount of $25,000.00 as well as any other damages 23 and/or injunctions the court deems fit or appropriate. (See generally ECF No. 1 at 10). 24 IV. DISCUSSION 25 The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits subjecting civil detainees 26 to conditions that amount to punishment. See generally Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 931-32 27 3 For example, plaintiff had limited out-of-cell time, having only one hour daily to shower, use 28 the phone and enjoy the dayroom. (See ECF No. 1 at 4-5). 1 (2004). A municipal entity is liable under Section 1983 only if a plaintiff can establish that his 2 constitutional injury was caused by employees acting pursuant to the municipality’s policies or 3 customs. See generally Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691- 4 92, 694 (1978); see also King v.
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 WILLIAM STEPHENSON, No. 2:20-cv-2227 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF PLACER, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a civil detainee proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983 together with a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2). 19 Plaintiff has not submitted either filing on a proper form. 20 Also before this court is plaintiff’s request that the court vacate its order issued November 21 18, 2020, which directed plaintiff to refile his in forma pauperis application and civil rights action 22 on the forms that the court provided to him. (See ECF No. 6). For the reasons stated below, the 23 court will deny plaintiff’s request and grant him in forma pauperis status. In addition, the court 24 shall order that the complaint be served on the sole named defendant, County of Placer. 25 I. IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION 26 Although plaintiff has not submitted his in forma pauperis request on a proper court form, 27 a review of the document plaintiff has submitted provides sufficient information to enable the 28 //// 1 court to determine his indigent status. (See generally ECF No. 2). Therefore, in the interest of 2 expediency, plaintiff’s in forma pauperis motion shall be granted. 3 As a civil detainee, plaintiff is not subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s (“PLRA”) 4 requirements regarding the payment of administrative fees.1 See Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 5 1140 (9th Cir. 2000). Therefore, an order directing the custodial hospital to collect filing fees 6 from plaintiff’s trust account will not issue with this order. 7 II. LEGAL STANDARD 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).2 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); Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d 774. 775 (9th Cir. 1996). 15 “A document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed,’ and ‘a pro se complaint, however 16 inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by 17 lawyers.’ ” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 18 106 (1976) (internal quotation marks omitted)). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e) (“Pleadings shall be 19 so construed as to do justice.”). Additionally, a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the 20 deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity to amend, unless the complaint's deficiencies 21 cannot be cured by amendment. See Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing 22 Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987) superseded on other grounds by statute 23 as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)). 24 1 In addition, civil detainees are not subject to the PLRA’s administrative exhaustion 25 requirement. See Page, 201 F.3d at 1140. 2 See Koch v. Price, No. 1:18-cv-01693-DAD-SAB (PC), 2019 WL 201525, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26 15, 2019) (stating complaint of civil detainee subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 27 1915(e)(2)(B)); see also McClellan v. Marshall, No. CV 08-2293 JFW (JTL), 2008 WL 1902726, at *1 n.1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2008) (stating whether prisoner or civil detainee, court screens 28 complaint under same standard pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1)). 1 III. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 2 Plaintiff, a civil detainee currently held at Coalinga State Hospital, names Placer County 3 as the sole defendant in this action. (See ECF No. 1 at 1, 3). During the period in question, 4 plaintiff, having previously been committed as a sexually violent predator under California 5 Welfare & Institutions Code § 6604, was awaiting a revocation hearing for having allegedly 6 violated his terms of conditional release. (See id. at 4). 7 Plaintiff contends that from May 2017 to April 2018, while in the custody of the Placer 8 County Sheriff’s Department as a civil detainee, he had continuous treatment under the Sexually 9 Violent Predator Act (“SVPA”). (See ECF No. 1 at 7). As a result, he argues that his Fourteenth 10 Amendment rights were violated when: (1) he was housed in administrative segregation for three 11 weeks and deprived of privileges;3 (2) he was housed with non-sex offender criminal detainees, 12 and (3) he was removed from the secure housing of administrative segregation without a requisite 13 court order that waived his secure housing placement. (See id. at 4-6, 9). 14 More specifically, plaintiff argues that his housing conditions, which were more restrictive 15 than those in other protective custody and general population units, violated the law. (See ECF 16 No. 1 at 4-5). He further contends that his placement with inmates who had been “committed 17 under the criminal process” as well as with “non-sex offenders” put his life “at risk of serious 18 harm” and “violated the law” as the placements were done for no legitimate, lawful purpose and 19 therefore, were unlawfully punitive. (See generally id. at 5-6). According to plaintiff, these were 20 official policies, customs and practices of defendant Placer County, and they caused him harm in 21 violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. (See id. at 3). 22 Plaintiff requests damages in the amount of $25,000.00 as well as any other damages 23 and/or injunctions the court deems fit or appropriate. (See generally ECF No. 1 at 10). 24 IV. DISCUSSION 25 The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits subjecting civil detainees 26 to conditions that amount to punishment. See generally Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 931-32 27 3 For example, plaintiff had limited out-of-cell time, having only one hour daily to shower, use 28 the phone and enjoy the dayroom. (See ECF No. 1 at 4-5). 1 (2004). A municipal entity is liable under Section 1983 only if a plaintiff can establish that his 2 constitutional injury was caused by employees acting pursuant to the municipality’s policies or 3 customs. See generally Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691- 4 92, 694 (1978); see also King v. County of Los Angeles, 885 F.3d 548, 558 (9th Cir. 2018) 5 (stating if county’s official policies caused particular constitutional violation at issue, it is subject 6 to Section 1983 liability). In addition, when a SVPA detainee is confined in conditions identical 7 to, similar to, or more restrictive than, those in which his criminal counterparts are held, it is 8 presumed that the detainee is being subjected to “punishment.” See Jones, 393 F.3d at 932. 9 Given plaintiff’s arguments that as a civil detainee defendant Placer County’s customs and 10 policies related to his custody and treatment while detained by the Placer County Sheriff’s 11 Department violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to more considerate treatment than 12 convicted criminals, liberally construed,4 plaintiff’s allegations state a substantive due process 13 claim against defendant Placer County. See generally King, 885 F.3d at 556-58. Therefore, the 14 county will be required to file a response to plaintiff’s complaint. 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; 17 2. As a civil detainee, plaintiff shall not be required to pay the standard administrative 18 filing fees in order to proceed with this action. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(h) and 42 U.S.C. 1997e(h); 19 see also Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000), and 20 3. Plaintiff’s request that the court vacate its order directing plaintiff to refile his 21 complaint and in forma pauperis application (ECF No. 6) is DENIED as moot. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 23 1915(a)(1) service of the complaint (ECF No. 1) and the cognizable claim therein on defendant 24 County of Placer is appropriate. 25 //// 26 4 This court is obligated to liberally construe the pleadings of pro se litigants. See Estelle, 429 27 U.S. at 106 (stating pro se documents are to be liberally construed); see also Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (stating pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standard than those 28 drafted by lawyers). 1 Under separate order, the Clerk of Court will be directed to provide plaintiff with the 2 | documents needed to begin the service process. 3 | Dated: January 4, 2021 4 5 6 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 | piB:13 DB/ORDERS/ORDERS.PRISONER/CIVIL RIGHTS/step2227.scrn.req.den 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28