Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00585/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00585-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL HUFTILE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-0585 DFL PAN P

vs.

 VAL G. FARMER,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a civil detainee under California’s Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) Act

proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The

matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and

Local General Order No. 262.

On February 10, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. On March

6, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary stay of these proceedings pending disposition of

a petition for writ of certiorari that he has filed in the United States Supreme Court in another

action. 

/////

Case 2:03-cv-00585-DFL-PAN Document 45 Filed 03/17/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis, with one exception. The court

finds that the magistrate judge’s recommendation of abstention is not well supported and that the

reasons given for abstention are more properly considered reasons for the denial of injunctive

relief. The court further finds a stay of this action unwarranted. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s March 6, 2006 motion for temporary stay is denied.

2. The findings and recommendations filed February 10, 2006 are adopted in full. 

3. Defendant’s August 19, 2005 motion to dismiss and for summary judgment is

granted.

4. Plaintiff’s claims for damages and declaratory relief are dismissed for failure to

state a claim. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).

5. Summary judgment is entered for defendant Farmer on plaintiff’s claims for

injunctive relief based on breach of psychotherapist-patient privilege.

6. Summary judgment is entered for defendant Farmer on plaintiff’s claim for

injunctive relief prohibiting Farmer from conspiring with state agents in the future to fabricate

evidence plaintiff has a mental disorder.

7. Plaintiff’s June 8, 2005 motion for preliminary injunction is denied.

DATED: March 17, 2006.

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:03-cv-00585-DFL-PAN Document 45 Filed 03/17/06 Page 2 of 2