Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01936/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01936-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL STARRETT, CO-649-4, 

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

AUDREY KING, et al.,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 14-4547 CRB (PR)

ORDER OF TRANSFER

(Dkt. #2 & 6)

I.

Plaintiff Michael Starrett, a former state prisoner now civilly committed to

Coalinga State Hospital after a Santa Clara County Superior Court jury found him to be

a sexually violent predator under California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act, Cal. Welf.

& Inst. Code § 6600 et seq. (SVPA), has filed a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

challenging SVPA’s commitment and treatment scheme. In a nutshell, plaintiff claims

that SVPA’s “assessment methodology” for predicting recidivism, and SVPA’s failure

to provide sexually violent predators with outpatient treatment, are unconstitutional. 

Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and an injunction preventing defendants – all current or

former officials of California’s Department of State Hospitals (formerly known as the

Department of Mental Health) – from holding civil detainees under SVPA until

defendants are able to offer them outpatient treatment. Plaintiff also seeks leave to

proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (dkt. #2 & 6), which, based solely on

his affidavit of poverty, is granted. 

Case 1:14-cv-01936-LJO-MJS Document 9 Filed 12/01/14 Page 1 of 3
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

27

28 2

II.

“‘Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related to

imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a complaint under the

Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. § 1979, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges

to the lawfulness of confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province

of habeas corpus.’” Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579 (2006) (quoting Muhammad

v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004)). “An inmate’s challenge to the circumstances of his

confinement, however, may be brought under § 1983.” Id. 

Habeas is the “exclusive remedy” for the prisoner who seeks “‘immediate or

speedier release’” from confinement. Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2011)

(quoting Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005)); see Calderon v. Ashmus, 523

U.S. 740, 747 (1998); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997); Preiser v.

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). “Where the prisoner’s claim would not

‘necessarily spell speedier release,’ however, suit may be brought under § 1983.’”

Skinner, 131 S. Ct. at 1293 (quoting Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 82). As a consequence,

challenges to prison conditions traditionally have been cognizable only via § 1983,

while challenges implicating the fact or duration of confinement must be brought

through a habeas petition. Docken v. Chase, 393 F.3d 1024, 1026 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Although plaintiff is a civilly committed patient, rather than a criminally

convicted prisoner, the habeas versus § 1983 proper remedy distinction also applies. 

Compare Hubbart v. Knapp, 379 F.3d 773, 779-81 (9th Cir. 2004) (upholding

constitutionality of SVPA against habeas challenge under 28 U.S.C. § 2254) with

Hydrick v. Hunter, 669 F.3d 937, 941-42 (9th Cir. 2012) (accepting defendants’

qualified immunity defense to civil committees’ § 1983 challenge to their conditions of

confinement). Consequently, to the extent that plaintiff seeks relief that would entitle

him to immediate or earlier release from his civil commitment, he must file a petition for

Case 1:14-cv-01936-LJO-MJS Document 9 Filed 12/01/14 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28 3

a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after exhausting state judicial remedies. 

See Skinner, 131 S. Ct. at 1293; see also Nelson v. Sandritter, 351 F.2d 284, 285 (9th

Cir. 1965) (constitutionality of state civil commitment proceedings may be challenged in

federal habeas corpus after state judicial remedies have been exhausted). And to the

extent that plaintiff seeks relief that may be construed as not necessarily requiring

speedier release from his civil commitment, his § 1983 action must be brought in the

Eastern District of California, where plaintiff is civilly committed at Coalinga State

Hospital and where all named defendants reside. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 84(b), 1391(b).

III.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, in the interest of justice and pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1406(a), this action be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of California. 

The clerk shall transfer this matter and terminate all pending motions as moot.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Dec. 1, 2014 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.14\Starrett, M.14-4547.transfer.wpd

Case 1:14-cv-01936-LJO-MJS Document 9 Filed 12/01/14 Page 3 of 3