Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02021/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02021-0/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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

TERRANCE BUTLER,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

CLIFF ALLENBY; AUDREY KING;

TOM VOSS; PAM AHLIN;

STEPHEN MAYBERG,

Defendant. /

No. C 14-5092 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF TRANSFER

(Dkt. 2)

Plaintiff is a civil detainee pursuant at the Coalinga State Hospital (“Coalinga”)

proceeding pro se. He is detained pursuant to California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act

(“SVPA”). He has filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, complaining about the conditions

of his confinement at Coalinga. Defendants are officials of Coalinga and of the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in Sacramento Both Coalinga and Sacramento lie

within the venue of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. 

Venue for this case is therefore proper in the Eastern District. See 28 U.S.C. 1391. 

Petitioner also complains about the validity of his assessment as a sexually violent

predator under the SVPA, which assessment took place in Alameda County. Challenges to the

assessment itself are the province of a habeas petition, not a civil rights action, because they

implicate the validity of his detention. See Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579 (2006)

(challenges to the lawfulness of confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the

province of habeas corpus); Nelson v. Sandritter, 351 F.2d 284, 285 (9th Cir. 1965)

(constitutionality of state civil commitment proceedings are challenged in federal habeas corpus

Case 1:14-cv-02021-LJO-MJS Document 3 Filed 12/17/14 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

once state remedies have been exhausted). Plaintiff may challenge the validity of his

assessment in this court, but he must do so in habeas petition filed in a separate action from the

instant civil rights case. 

 Accordingly, and in the interests of justice, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. 1404(a), 1406(a). In

light of this transfer, the pending motions (dkt. 2) to proceed in forma pauperis is deferred to the

Eastern District.

The clerk shall transfer this matter forthwith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 17 , 2014. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-02021-LJO-MJS Document 3 Filed 12/17/14 Page 2 of 2