Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00840/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00840-2/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

PAUL F. JENNINGS,

Plaintiff,

v.

AUDREY KING, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00840-SAB

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON 

WHICH RELIEF COULD BE GRANTED

Plaintiff Jennings is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).1

Plaintiff, a civil detainee housed at Coalinga State Hospital, brings this civil rights action 

against Dr. A. Azizian, Chief Psychologist at Corcoran State Hospital and Audrey King, 

Executive Director of Coalinga State Hospital. Plaintiff claims that the Sexually Violent 

Predator Act under which he is being held is unconstitutional.

I.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff‟s complaint essentially alleges that Plaintiff was civilly committed pursuant to 

Civil Commitment Petition filed by the Shasta County District Attorney pursuant to California 

 

1

Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on June 12, 15 (ECF No. 5.)

Case 1:15-cv-00840-SAB Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 1 of 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

2

Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600. The petition alleged that Plaintiff met the criteria of a 

person who has been convicted of sexually violent offenses and who has a diagnosed mental 

disorder that makes him a danger to the health and safety of others, in that it is likely that 

Plaintiff will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior after completing his term of 

imprisonment. The allegations in the petition were found to be true by a jury, and Plaintiff was 

civilly recommitted indefinitely in to custody at Coalinga State Hospital. The balance of the 

complaint is a recitation of civil commitment procedures. Plaintiff‟s claims that the Sexually 

Violent Predator Act is facially invalid because detainees are denied the right to petition for 

unconditional release. Plaintiff also claims that the post-commitment review procedures are 

unconstitutional.

II.

ANALYSIS

A. Original Commitment

The relevant procedures used to civilly detain sexually violent predators in the state of 

California are codified in Sections 6600 through 6609.3 of the California Welfare and 

Institutions Code. Under Section 6601, the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation can refer an inmate that may be a sexually violent predator for an evaluation. 

Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6601(a)(1). After an initial screening, the individual is referred to 

California Department of State Hospitals (CDSH) for a full evaluation to determine whether the 

individual meets the criteria set forth in Section 6600. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6601(b)-(c). 

The individual is examined by two psychiatrists or psychologists and if both professionals agree 

that the individual has a diagnosed mental disorder such that he or she is likely to engage in acts 

of sexual violence without appropriate treatment, the CDSH forwards a request for a petition for 

commitment under Section 6602. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6601 (d). The county that receives 

the request may file a petition for commitment in the state superior court. Cal. Welf. & Inst. 

Code § 6601 (I). 

A judge from the superior court reviews the petition and determines whether there is 

probable cause to believe that the individual is likely to engage in sexually violent predatory 

Case 1:15-cv-00840-SAB Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 2 of 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

3

criminal behavior upon his or her release. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6602(a). At the probable 

cause hearing, the individual is entitled to the assistance of counsel. Id. If there is probable 

cause, a trial is conducted to determine whether the individual is a danger to the health and safety 

of others by reason of a diagnosed mental disorder and is likely to engage in acts of sexual 

violence upon release. Id. The individual is entitled to the assistance of counsel, the right to 

retain experts or professional persons to perform an examination on his or her behalf, and the 

right to have access to all relevant medical and psychological reports. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Coe § 

6603(a). Indigent individuals have the right to appointed counsel and assistance in obtaining an 

expert or professional to perform an examination. Id. Individuals also have a right to demand a 

trial by jury. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6603(b). A unanimous verdict is required in any jury 

trial. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6603(f). The relevant burden of proof that must be met whether 

the individual, beyond a reasonable doubt, is a sexually violent predator. Cal. Welf. & Inst. 

Code § 6604.

B. Post Commitment Proceedings

A person civilly committed under the SVPA is committed to an indeterminate term. Cal. 

Welf. & Inst. Code § 6604-6604.1. While confined, “[t]he person shall be evaluated by two 

practicing psychologists or psychiatrists, or by one practicing psychologist and one practicing 

psychiatrist, designated by the Department of State Hospitals.” Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 

6604.1. Additionally, the provisions of Section 6601(c) – (i) and the rights, requirements, and 

procedures set forth in Section 6603 “shall apply to all commitment proceedigns.”

Under the SVPA, a person who has been found to be a sexually violent predator “shall 

have a current examination of his or her mental condition made at least once every year.” Cal. 

Welf. & Inst. Code § 6605(a). The examination includes consideration of whether the 

committed person currently meets the definition of a sexually violent predator and whether 

conditional release to a less restrictive alternative or an unconditional release is in the best 

interest of the person. Id. If it is determined that the person is no longer a sexually violent 

predator, or that conditional release to a less restrictive alternative is in the best interest of the 

person, the director of CDSH shall authorize the person to petition the court for conditional or 

Case 1:15-cv-00840-SAB Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 3 of 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

4

unconditional discharge. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6605(b). 

However, even if CDSH fails to recommend Plaintiff for conditional release or 

unconditional discharge under Section 6608, a detainee may directly petition the court “for 

conditional release or an unconditional discharge without the recommendation or concurrence of 

the Director of Mental Health.” Id. “The person petitioning for conditional release and 

unconditional discharge under this subdivision shall be entitled to the assistance of counsel.” Id. 

A petition in this manner is somewhat more restrictive because if the individual had previously 

filed a petition for conditional release without CDSH‟s recommendation, and the court 

determined that the previous petition was frivolous or the individual‟s condition has not so 

changed that he or she would not be a danger to others, the court may deny the subsequent 

petition “unless it contains facts upon which a court could find that the condition of the 

committed person had so changed that a hearing was warranted.” Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 

6608(a). Further, upon receipt of a first or subsequent petition filed without CDSH‟s 

recommendation, the court may deny the petition without a hearing if it determines that the 

petition is based on frivolous grounds. Id. If a hearing is held and the court determines that the 

individual would not be a danger to others, the individual is placed in a forensic conditional 

release program for at least one year and then re-evaluated by the court for unconditional release. 

Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6608(d). In any hearing under Section 6608, “the petitioner shall have 

the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.” Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6608(i).

C. Due Process and SVPA

“[C]ivil commitment for any purpose constitutes a significant deprivation of liberty that 

requires due process protection.” Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425 (1979). „[I]n certain 

narrow circumstances,” states may “provide for the forcible civil detainment of people who are 

unable to control their behavior and who thereby pose a danger to the public health and safety.” 

Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 357 (1997). Statutes providing for involuntary civil 

commitment have been “consistently upheld . . . provided the confinement takes place pursuant 

to proper procedures and evidentiary standards.” Id. (holding that Kansas Sexually Violent 

Predator Act comports with due process requirements.”

Case 1:15-cv-00840-SAB Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 4 of 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

5

The Court finds that the post-commitment procedures set forth in the SVPA do not 

violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In civil commitment hearings, the 

factors relevant in determining whether an individual has been afforded sufficient procedural 

protections under the due process clause are whether the individual has received: 1) written 

notice; 2) a hearing at which the evidence being relied upon for the commitment is disclosed to 

the prisoner; 3) an opportunity at the hearing for the prisoner to be heard in person, to present 

testimony and documentary evidence, and to cross-examine witnesses called by the state; 4) an 

independent decision maker; 5) reasoned findings of fact; 6) legal counsel; and 7) effective and 

timely notice of these rights. See Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 494-97 (1980); Carty v. Nelson, 

426 F.3d 1064, 1074 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff has not alleged that he was deprived of any of 

these procedural protections.

Even if Plaintiff had alleged deficiencies on the part of the evaluators, he cannot state a 

claim for a due process violation. The evaluators are not the ultimate decision makers who 

decide whether Plaintiff should continue to be detained. Under the SVPA‟s scheme, a superior 

court judge is the ultimate decision maker. The SVPA scheme permits Plaintiff to file a petition 

in state court for conditional or unconditional release without the recommendation of the 

evaluators of CDSH. Thus, even if any allegations of procedural deficiency are proven true, the 

alleged impropriety is of little consequence because Plaintiff can file a petition for release 

directly to the court and would be entitled to the assistance of an attorney and will have the 

opportunity to present evidence before a state judge in support of his contention that he is no 

longer a sexually violent predator within the definition of the SVPA. Presumably, within the 

petition itself and at any subsequent hearing, Plaintiff will have the opportunity to present 

evidence in support of his contention that the evaluators‟ opinions are not worthy of 

consideration because of their biases. In other words, the SVPA scheme provides for sufficient 

procedural mechanisms for Plaintiff to challenge the evaluators‟ conclusions and provides 

Plaintiff with the opportunity to prove by a preponderance of the evidence in a hearing before a 

state court judge that he no longer qualifies for civil detainment. The Court finds that the 

procedural protections provided by California‟s SVPA do not violate due process. See Robinson 

Case 1:15-cv-00840-SAB Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 5 of 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

6

v. Mayberg, No. 09-cv-345-IEG(POR), 2010 WL 2196564 at *7 (S.D. Cal. May 27, 2010)(“the 

procedures for judicial review, set forth in Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 6605 and 6608 are 

sufficient to insure that Petitioner‟s confinement will not continue beyond the point when he no 

longer suffers from a mental disorder or is no longer dangerous.”).

Given the SVPA‟s scheme for obtaining release from civil confinement, Plaintiff has 

failed to provide a clear explanation of how he suffered any injury as a result of the evaluators‟ 

alleged biases and consideration of improper evidence. Even if the Court were to assume that 

the evaluators consistently concluded that Plaintiff was unfit for conditional or unconditional 

release, that did not foreclose Plaintiff‟s chance for release. Plaintiff could have utilized the 

procedures outlined under Section 6608 to challenge the evaluators‟ conclusions. If Plaintiff 

believed that the evidence used by the evaluators was unreliable, that the evaluators used failed 

to consider relevant evidence, that the evaluators‟ conclusions were wrong, that the evaluators 

were biased, or that the actuarial assessment methodologies used were unreliable, Section 6608 

provides ample opportunity for Plaintiff to file a petition in state court and present evidence in 

support of his contentions. Plaintiff fails to offer any argument as to why the procedural 

protections offered by Section 6608 are constitutionally insufficient to protect Plaintiff‟s liberty 

interests. Plaintiff fails to support a cognizable claim under the Due Process Clause.

II.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court finds the SVPA to be constitutional. As noted above, there is procedure 

outlined in Section 6608 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code to challenge any 

conclusions of the evaluators that Plaintiff believes are improper. Based upon the allegations in 

the complaint, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff is unable to allege any additional facts that 

would support a claim upon which relief could be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and further 

amendment would be futile. See Hartmann v. CDCR, 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013)(“A 

district court may deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile.”) Based on the nature 

of the deficiencies at issue, the Court finds that further leave to amend is not warranted. Lopez 

v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 14468-1449 (9th 

Case 1:15-cv-00840-SAB Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 6 of 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

7

Cir. 1987).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed for failure to state 

a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Clerk is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 20, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00840-SAB Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 7 of 7