Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00725/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00725-1/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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KENDYL WELCH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MOLLY O’NEAL, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 15-cv-0725-TEH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Plaintiff, a civil detainee, proceeds with a civil rights 

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He is civilly committed pursuant 

to California's Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA). See Cal. 

Welf. & Inst. Code 6600, et seq. Plaintiff is committed in 

Coalinga, CA which is located in the Eastern District of 

California. The underlying commitment proceeding appears to have 

originated in Santa Clara County, which is in this district.1 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint was dismissed with to leave 

amend and he has filed a second amended complaint. 

Plaintiff states that he was subject to faulty mental health 

assessments that were used as evidence to determine that he 

should be subject to civil commitment. He alleges that the 

California Department of State Hospitals conducted the 

 

1 Plaintiff filed a previous case where he stated that the 

commitment proceeding originated in San Francisco County. Welch 

v. Allenby, No C-14-5223 TEH (PR).

Case 3:15-cv-00725-TEH Document 15 Filed 07/28/15 Page 1 of 6
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 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

assessments. The sole defendant in this case is the supervising 

deputy of the Santa Clara County Public Defender’s Office, who 

Plaintiff alleges supervised the assigned deputy public defender. 

Plaintiff states that Defendant should have been aware that 

Plaintiff’s assigned public defender was providing ineffective 

assistance of counsel which resulted in Plaintiff receiving the 

faulty mental health assessments. 

Plaintiff alleges that the faulty health assessments prevent 

outpatient treatment in violation of his Constitutional rights. 

For relief, Plaintiff seeks protection from future ineffective 

assistance of counsel with respect to the faulty mental health 

assessments. 

I 

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of 

cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity 

or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss 

the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint 

“is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a 

defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

Pleadings filed by pro se litigants, however, must be liberally 

construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 

1990). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must 

allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the 

Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) 

Case 3:15-cv-00725-TEH Document 15 Filed 07/28/15 Page 2 of 6
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under 

the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

II 

Plaintiff was informed in the prior screening orders that to 

the extent that he sought relief regarding his treatment, his § 

1983 action must be brought in the Eastern District of 

California, where plaintiff is civilly committed at Coalinga 

State Hospital. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 84(b), 1391(b). The Court 

noted that Plaintiff’s previous case, Welch v. Allenby, No C-14-

5223 TEH (PR), also challenged the validity of the health 

assessments and named as Defendants officials at the California 

Department of State Hospitals and Coalinga State Hospital. That 

case was transferred to the Eastern District of California. To 

the extent Plaintiff sought to again challenge the health 

assessments that claim was dismissed as duplicative. 

Plaintiff was also informed that to the extent he sought to 

challenge his underlying commitment or sought relief that would 

entitle him to immediate or earlier release from his civil 

commitment, he must file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after exhausting state judicial remedies. 

See Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2011); 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). 

To the extent Plaintiff sought injunctive relief against 

Defendant Molly O’Neal, the county public defender; his 

complaints were dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff had 

Case 3:15-cv-00725-TEH Document 15 Filed 07/28/15 Page 3 of 6
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

repeatedly presented general allegations that Defendant should 

have known that the health assessments were faulty and 

irrational, but he has provided no specific details. Plaintiff 

was also informed that he needed to clarify the relief that he 

sought. He sought relief from future assessments but did not 

discuss the circumstances that would lead to another assessment. 

It was not clear if Plaintiff has already been committed, was 

still awaiting the final commitment hearing, or if he has been 

committed indefinitely. 

In this second amended complaint, Plaintiff has again failed 

to cure the deficiencies identified by the Court. Plaintiff 

states that public defender’s office failed to adequately train 

attorneys and did not properly investigate Department of State 

Hospital staff members. His main argument is that the public 

defender’s office did not successfully demonstrate that the 

assessments were inadequate that were used to detain him and 

others similarly situated detainees. Plaintiff seeks to present 

this claim pursuant to Miranda v. Clark County, Nevada, 319 F.3d 

465, 468-70 (9th Cir. 2003) (head of a county public defender’s 

office, as the administrative head of an organization formed to 

represent criminal defendants, may be held accountable under § 

1983 for a policy that leads to a denial of an individual’s right 

to effective representation of counsel). In Miranda, the 

plaintiff complained of a policy of administering lie detector 

test to all defendants and allocating minimal resources for 

preparation of defense to those clients who appear guilty because 

they failed the polygraph, and of a policy to assign the leastexperienced lawyers on staff to capital cases without training or 

Case 3:15-cv-00725-TEH Document 15 Filed 07/28/15 Page 4 of 6
5 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

experience in the special demands of such cases. Id. 

In the second amended complaint, Plaintiff has again failed 

to specifically describe how the public defender’s policy led to 

a violation of his rights. Plaintiff’s central argument is with 

the Department of State Hospitals regarding the assessment 

procedures and he has already filed that case. He appears to 

argue that the public defender’s office is not properly 

challenging these assessments. However, Plaintiff again provides 

no specific arguments on how the office or how they handle cases 

is inadequate. His conclusory statements that the public 

defender’s office needs to better train its staff are 

insufficient to state a claim. "A claim has facial plausibility 

when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court 

to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for 

the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 

(2009). Despite being provided several opportunities, Plaintiff 

has failed to describe the specific deficiencies with the public 

defender’s office that he seeks to address. His conclusory 

allegations that more training is required to challenge the 

faulty assessments are insufficient. In Miranda, the plaintiff 

complained of a specific policy of administering lie detector 

tests, yet Plaintiff in this case just presents conclusory 

statements and general allegations. This action is dismissed for 

failure to state a claim. Because Plaintiff has already been 

provided several opportunities to amend and as he has failed to 

cure the deficiencies identified by the Court, it would be futile 

to provide further leave to amend and this action is dismissed 

with prejudice. 

Case 3:15-cv-00725-TEH Document 15 Filed 07/28/15 Page 5 of 6
6 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

III 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders as 

follows: 

1. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is DISMISSED with 

prejudice for failure to state a claim. 

2. The Clerk shall close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 07/27/2015 

________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.15\Welch0725.dis.docx 

Case 3:15-cv-00725-TEH Document 15 Filed 07/28/15 Page 6 of 6