Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00725/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00725-0/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 

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 WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND 

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 original complaint was dismissed with to leave amend 

and he has filed a first amended complaint that is more than 800 

pages. 

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 

 

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 13 Filed 06/25/15 Page 1 of 7
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

California Department of State Hospitals conducted the 

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 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 13 Filed 06/25/15 Page 2 of 7
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 order 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 this case would be dismissed as duplicative. 

Plaintiff was also informed in the prior order that to the 

extent Plaintiff 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 complaint 

was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff presented general 

Case 3:15-cv-00725-TEH Document 13 Filed 06/25/15 Page 3 of 7
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

allegations that Defendant should have known that the health 

assessments were faulty and irrational, but 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 amended complaint, Plaintiff emphasizes that he is 

not seeking speedier relief from confinement. He states that he 

seeks better individualized treatment and for better assessments 

to be used to determine his treatment. Motion to Amend at 1. To 

the extent that Plaintiff is again challenging the treatment by 

the Department of State Hospitals he has already brought that 

action in his previous case and that claim is dismissed from this 

action. 

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). 

Case 3:15-cv-00725-TEH Document 13 Filed 06/25/15 Page 4 of 7
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

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 least-experienced lawyers on staff to capital cases 

without training or experience in the special demands of such 

cases. Id. 

In his 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 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 set forth policies to ensure Constitutional 

rights are protected 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). The amended complaint is 

dismissed with leave to amend to address these deficiencies and 

describe how the specific policies are inadequate or specifically 

how the training is improper. 

 Plaintiff’s amended complaint was more than 800 pages. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short 

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 

Case 3:15-cv-00725-TEH Document 13 Filed 06/25/15 Page 5 of 7
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

entitled to relief." While the Court has instructed Plaintiff to 

provide additional details the second amended complaint may be no 

longer than 35 pages. 

III 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders as 

follows: 

1. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO 

FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT containing all related claims 

against all Defendants that Plaintiff wishes to proceed against 

in this action. The pleading must be simple, concise and direct 

and must state clearly and succinctly how each and every 

Defendant is alleged to have violated Plaintiff’s federallyprotected rights. See Leer, 844 F.2d at 634. THE SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT MAY BE NO MORE THAN 35 PAGES. The pleading must 

include the caption and civil case number used in this order and 

the words COURT ORDERED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first 

page. Plaintiff is advised that he must file all of his claims 

in one complaint and not present them piecemeal to the Court in 

various letters and other documents. Failure to file a proper 

First Amended Complaint within twenty-eight days of this order 

will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice. 

2. Plaintiff is advised that the Second Amended Complaint 

will supersede the Amended Complaint and all other pleadings. 

Claims and defendants not included in the Second Amended 

Complaint will not be considered by the Court. See Lacey v. 

Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) ("For 

claims dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, we 

will not require that they be repled in a subsequent amended 

Case 3:15-cv-00725-TEH Document 13 Filed 06/25/15 Page 6 of 7
7 

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

complaint to preserve them for appeal. But for any claims 

voluntarily dismissed, we will consider those claims to be waived 

if not repled."). 

3. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this 

action. Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of 

address by filing a separate paper with the Clerk headed “Notice 

of Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in 

a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal 

of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 06/25/2015 

________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.15\Welch0725.dwlta2.docx

Case 3:15-cv-00725-TEH Document 13 Filed 06/25/15 Page 7 of 7