Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01498/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01498-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANFORD D. JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEE SHAFER, et al.,

Defendants.

/

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01498-OWW DLB PC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION CONSTRUED

AS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 10)

ORDER STAYING ACTION PENDING

COMPLETION OF STATE PROCEEDINGS

Order

I. Background

Plaintiff Sanford D. Jones (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperisin this civilrights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff, a civil detainee at Coalinga

State Hospital in Coalinga, California, filed this action on October 15, 2007. On November 6, 2008,

the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 7.) 

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, filed December 9, 2008, which was also dismissed by the

Court on June 24, 2009, again with leave to amend. (Docs. 8, 9.)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion requesting that the Court vacate its screening

order of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 10.) In his motion, Plaintiff states that he is a

not a prisoner, and objects to the Court’s screening order because it references decisions involving

prisoner civil rights issues. Plaintiff also contends that his Due Process and Equal Protection rights

are not barred as a matter of law by the favorable termination rule of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

1

Case 1:07-cv-01498-LJO -DLB Document 11 Filed 02/10/10 Page 1 of 4
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

477 (1994). Plaintiff contends that he has yet to be civilly committed. Thus, Plaintiff is “entitled to

protections at least as great as those afforded to a civilly committed individual and at least as great

as those afforded to an individual accused but not convicted of a crime.” Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d

918, 932 (9th Cir. 2004). The Ninth Circuit has held that Heck applies in the context of civil

commitment proceedings. Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1140-41 (9th Cir. 2005).

The Court willgrant Plaintiff’smotion to vacate the June 24, 2009 order dismissing Plaintiff’s

first amended complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff has not been civilly committed and thus Heck

and Huftile do not apply. The Court issues the following order.

II. Summary of First Amended Complaint

Plaintiff alleges that pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predators Act (“SVPA”) he is to be

released from confinement if he does not suffer from a mental abnormality rendering him unable

to control his dangerousness. Plaintiff alleges a claim for relief against staff psychologist Dee

Shafer, social worker Michael Themins, and social worker Tim Jones for violation of his rights

under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United

States Constitution “by their falsification of the records and files of Coalinga State Hospital to

perpetuate his involuntary confinement therein.” Plaintiff also alleges retaliation by Defendants

Jones and Shafer. (Doc. 8, First Am. Compl.) Based on the submitted evidence, Plaintiff’s action

is premised on his allegedly inappropriate diagnosis, which provides the basis for his retention

subsequent to expiration of his prison sentence and parole, but prior to a trial determining whether

he will be civilly committed as a SVP. Thus, as of the date Plaintiff filed this action, he had not yet

been found to be a SVP.

This Court must abstain from any ongoing state court proceedings. The federal courts have

an enduring obligation to exercise jurisdiction over all cases properly before them. However,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2283, “[a] court of the United States may not grant an injunction or stay

proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary

in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” Subject to few exceptions, state

courts must be permitted to try state cases free from interference by federal courts. Younger v.

Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43 (1971). When federal courts are asked to enjoin pending state court

2

Case 1:07-cv-01498-LJO -DLB Document 11 Filed 02/10/10 Page 2 of 4
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

proceedings, “the normal thing to do . . . is not to issue such injunctions.” Id. at 44. This concept

of non-interference by federal courts in state court proceedings is known as the Younger abstention

doctrine.

The Supreme Court has explained that the fundamental policy reason for the doctrine of

abstention is “comity,” that is, “a proper respect for state functions, a recognition of the fact that the

entire country is made up of a Union of separate state governments, and a continuance of the belief

that the National Government will fare best if the States and their institutions are left free to perform

their separate functionsin their separate ways.” Id. Also foundationalis “the basic doctrine of equity

jurisprudence that courts of equity should not act, and particularlyshould not act to restrain a criminal

prosecution, when the moving party has an adequate remedy at law and will not suffer irreparable

injury if denied equitable relief.” Id. at 43. Under our Constitution, the abstention doctrine is

important “in order to prevent erosion of the role of the jury and avoid a duplication of legal

proceedings and legalsanctions where a single suit would be adequate to protect the rights asserted.” 

Id. at 44. For these reasons, courts of equity are restrained from interfering with criminal

prosecutions. Since the action is “in aid of or closely related to” a criminal statute, to wit,

California’s SVPA, the state is a party, and an important state enforcement policy - protection of the

public from sexually violent predators - is at stake, the Younger doctrine necessarily applies.

Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982); Huffman v.

Pursue, 420 U.S. 592, 603 (1975); Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 423 (1979).

Furthermore, because state civil proceedings are judicial in nature, implicate important state

interests, and afford Plaintiff an adequate opportunity to litigate his federal claims, the Court will

dismiss Plaintiff’s declaratory and injunctive relief claims so as not to interfere with ongoing state

proceedings. See Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 975 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (outlining

circumstances under which Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), is appropriate). The Court will

stay Plaintiff’s claims for money damages until the state court proceedings are completed. See id.

(“[W]hen damages are sought and Younger principles apply, it makes sense for the federal court to

refrain from exercising jurisdiction temporarily by staying its hand until such time as the state

proceeding is no longer pending.” (italics omitted)).

3

Case 1:07-cv-01498-LJO -DLB Document 11 Filed 02/10/10 Page 3 of 4
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

III. Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the following:

1. Plaintiff’s motion, construed as a motion for reconsideration, filed June 30, 2009, is

GRANTED;

2. The Court’s June 24, 2009 order is VACATED;

3. Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are DISMISSED; and

4. Plaintiff’s claim for money damages is STAYED pending the completion of the state

civil commitment proceedings. Because Plaintiff is the only party to have appeared

in this action, it is Plaintiff’s responsibility to notify the Court when the state civil

commitment proceedings are completed for the stay to be lifted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:07-cv-01498-LJO -DLB Document 11 Filed 02/10/10 Page 4 of 4