Taylor v. Price

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: August 26, 2021
• Docket: 5:21-cv-05237
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EUGENE ELRIDGE TAYLOR, 11 Case No. 21-05237 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DENYING MOTION AS MOOT v. 13

14 WARDEN BRANDON PRICE, 15 Defendant. (Docket No. 3) 16

17 18 Plaintiff, a civil detainee, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983, against Warden Brandon Price of Coalinga State Hospital, where Plaintiff 20 is currently committed under the Sexually Violent Predator Act.1 Dkt. No. 1 at 4. 21 Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be addressed in a separate 22 order. 23 DISCUSSION 24 A. Standard of Review 25 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 26 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 27 1 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 2 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 3 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 4 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 5 construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 6 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 7 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 8 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 9 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 10 B. Plaintiff’s Claims 11 Plaintiff states that he is currently confined at the “Coalinga State SVP Hospital for 12 SVP Men.” Dkt. No. 1 at 1. He filed the instant action “[t]o prevent arbitrary deprivation 13 in any event, the question of which due process requirements apply is one of federal law, 14 not California law.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff wants the Warden to “drop the [SVP] petition for 15 lack of substantial evidence” and wants to know why he has not been released from 16 “prison custody” since July 2, 1986. Dkt. No. 1 at 3. 17 States may enact statutes that provide for the “forcible civil detainment of people 18 who are unable to control their behavior and who thereby pose a danger to the public 19 health and safety.” Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 357 (1997). California's Sexually 20 Violent Predator Act (SVPA), is codified at California Welfare & Institutions Code §§ 21 6600-6609.3. In Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 983 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Hydrick I”), rev’d 22 on other grounds, 129 S. Ct. 2431 (2009), op. after remand, Hydrick v. Hunter, 669 F.3d 23 937 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Hydrick II”), the Ninth Circuit summarized how the SVPA works.2 24 2 The Supreme Court reversed and remanded Hydrick in light of its decision in Ashcroft v. 25 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), in which it held that under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that complainant- 26 detainee in a Bivens action failed to plead sufficient facts “plausibly showing” that top 1 The SVPA defines a sexually violent predator (SVP) as a person “convicted of a sexually 2 violent offense against two or more victims for which he or she received a determinate 3 sentence and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the 4 health and safety of others” that is, is “likely [to] engage in sexually violent criminal 5 behavior.” Hydrick I, 500 F.3d at 983 (citing Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6600(a)). 6 Each year, an SVP has a right to a show cause hearing to determine whether his 7 commitment should be continued. Id. at 984. (citing § 6605(a)-(b)). If it is found that the 8 SVP continues to be a danger to the health or safety of the community, the person is 9 committed for two years from the date of the finding. Id. (citing § 6605(e)). These 10 successive periods of commitment can be continued indefinitely, or until the SVP 11 completes all five phases of treatment. Id. at 983-84 (citing §§ 6602-6604). Upon 12 successful completion of Phase Five, the SVP is conditionally released under the 13 supervision of the California Mental Health Department. Id. 14 Here, Plaintiff is clearly challenging his continual civil commitment under the 15 SVPA. However, a § 1983 action is not the appropriate avenue for such a challenge. The 16 constitutionality of state civil commitment proceedings may be challenged in federal 17 habeas corpus once state remedies have been exhausted. See Nelson v. Sandritter, 351 18 F.2d 284, 285 (9th Cir. 1965). Furthermore, although a district court may construe a 19 habeas petition by a prisoner attacking the conditions of his confinement as a civil rights 20 action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971), the 21 opposite is not true: A civil rights complaint seeking habeas relief should be dismissed 22 without prejudice to bringing it as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Trimble v. City 23 of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, this action should be 24 dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s refiling as a petition for habeas corpus pursuant 25 to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 26 1 In addition, the preferable forum for such a habeas petition is in the district of 2 || confinement. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(2); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th 3 || Cir. 1989). Plaintiff is currently committed to Coalinga State Hospital in Fresno County. 4 || Fresno County is within the jurisdiction of the Eastern District of California. 28 U.S.C. § 5 || 84(b). Accordingly, Petitioner should file a habeas action challenging his indefinite 6 commitment in the Eastern District. 7 8 CONCLUSION 9 For the reasons set forth above, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 10 || Plaintiffs motion for a “speedy trial,” Dkt. No. 3, is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff may file 11 || a federal habeas petition challenging his continual civil commitment in the Eastern District 2 of California, provided he has also exhausted his state court remedies before doing so. See E 13 || 28 U.S.C. § 84(b); Nelson, 351 F.2d at 285. S 14 This order terminates Docket No. 3. 3 15 IT ISSO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: — August 26, 2021 heh Lue harman) BETH LABSON FREEMAN = "7 United States District Judge Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Order of Dism.; Denying Mot. as Moot PRO-SE\BLF\CR.21\05237Taylor_dism(cr-he) 26 27