Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02723/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02723-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL WHELAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-02723-EMC 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO LIFT THE STAY

Docket Nos. 21-22

This pro se civil rights action was stayed on December 10, 2013, pursuant to the rule from 

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because success on Plaintiff’s claims would imply the 

invalidity of pending civil commitment proceedings under California’s Sexually Violent Predator 

Act. The Court explained:

Here, Plaintiff’s claims about the adequacy of his legal 

representation, the propriety of the evaluations used as the basis for 

his commitment, and the alleged conspiracy to keep him in custody 

are intimately related to the SVPA civil commitment case. Success 

on any of Plaintiff’s claims would imply the invalidity of the 

pending SVPA proceedings or any eventual commitment that might 

occur. Accordingly, the Court will follow the path suggested by 

Wallace [v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393 (2007)], and stay further 

proceedings in this matter until plaintiff’s SVPA proceedings have 

concluded. 

If Plaintiff wants to challenge the lawfulness of his current 

custody, the exclusive method by which he may do so in federal 

court is by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. 

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). (Docket No. 14 at 4.)

Plaintiff now moves to lift the stay, and proceed with this action. He does not allege that 

the SVPA proceedings have been dismissed or set aside, and his continued housing at the 

Coalinga State Hospital suggests the SVPA proceedings are either still ongoing or at least have not 

been set aside. The motion to lift the stay is DENIED because the reason for the stay -- the 

Case 3:13-cv-02723-EMC Document 23 Filed 10/26/16 Page 1 of 2
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

For the Northern District of California

pendency of the civil commitment proceedings -- still exists. Docket Nos. 21 and 22. 

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s federal petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the 

civil commitment proceedings was denied, see Williams v. King, No. 14-cv-1831 PJH, and 

currently is on appeal, see Williams v. King, Ninth Cir. Case No. 15-17499. Plaintiff should notify 

this court of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in that appeal when that decision is issued.

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 21 and 22.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 26, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02723-EMC Document 23 Filed 10/26/16 Page 2 of 2