Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02258/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02258-6/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CORY HOCH,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEPHEN MAYBERG, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:10-cv-02258-DLB PC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS

ECF No. 32

I. Background

Plaintiff Cory Hoch (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee in the custody of the California 

Department of Mental Health, pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code sections 6600, et 

seq., also known as the Sexually Violent Predators Act. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against 

Defendants Stephen Mayberg and Pamela Ahlin for violation of the Fourth Amendment. Pending 

before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, filed May 15, 2012. ECF No. 32. The matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 

230(l).

II. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

The focus of any Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal . . . is the complaint.” Schneider v. California 

Dept. of Corr., 151 F.3d 1194, 1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998). In considering a motion to dismiss for 

failure to state a claim, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, 

Case 1:10-cv-02258-AWI-DLB Document 33 Filed 10/25/12 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

Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the 

light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and resolve all doubts in the pleader's favor. 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). The federal system is one of notice pleading. 

Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1126 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim 

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Detailed factual allegations 

are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell 

Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, 

accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 

555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

III. Summary of First Amended Complaint

Plaintiff is a civil detainee, detained at Coalinga State Hospital in Coalinga, California. First 

Am. Compl. (“FAC”) 2. Plaintiff has a hospital room. FAC 2. On March 18, 2008, officers 

Tarkenton and Christian entered his hospital room and searched his living area and locker. FAC 2. 

Plaintiff did not consent to the search. FAC 2. There was no warrant. FAC 2. Plaintiff contends 

that he has an expectation of privacy in his hospital room. FAC 3. Senior psychiatric technician 

John Sanzberro gave the officers the opportunity to search when he declared that he believed 

Plaintiff had other contraband in his property. FAC 3. Plaintiff’s property was seized, which 

included his laptop. FAC 11. Plaintiff contends a violation of the Fourth Amendment, the Takings 

Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Article I, sections 7(a), 13, and 19 

of the California Constitution.

IV. Analysis

Plaintiff makes no allegations that Defendants Ahlin and Mayberg violated Plaintiff’s 

constitutional or federal rights. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (“A person 

‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if 

he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act 

which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.”).

Case 1:10-cv-02258-AWI-DLB Document 33 Filed 10/25/12 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

Plaintiff thus does not state a claim against them. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss will 

be granted and they will be dismissed from this action for failure to state a claim.1 By separate 

order, the Court will screen Plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

V. Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed May 15, 2012, is granted; and

2. Defendants Ahlin and Mayberg are dismissed from this action with prejudice for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 23, 2012 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

 

1 The Court does not reach Defendants’ other arguments raised in their motion to dismiss.

Case 1:10-cv-02258-AWI-DLB Document 33 Filed 10/25/12 Page 3 of 3