Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02047/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02047-0/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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT SEGURA,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

CLIFF ALLENBY, et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 14-05216 DMR (PR)

ORDER OF TRANSFER

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, is a civil detainee at the Coalinga State Hospital

(“Coalinga”), in Coalinga, California. He is detained pursuant to California’s Sexually Violent

Predator Act (“SVPA”). 

On November 25, 2014, he filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, complaining about the

conditions of his confinement at Coalinga. He also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis.

On the same date, the Clerk of the Court notified Plaintiff in writing that this matter has been

assigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. 

Here, Defendants are officials of Coalinga and of the California Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation in Sacramento, California. Both Coalinga and Sacramento lie within the venue of

the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Venue for this case is

therefore proper in the Eastern District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 

Petitioner also complains about the validity of his assessment as a sexually violent predator

under the SVPA, which assessment took place in Santa Clara County. Challenges to the assessment

itself are the province of a habeas petition, not a civil rights action, because they implicate the

validity of his detention. See Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579 (2006) (challenges to the

lawfulness of confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus);

Case 1:14-cv-02047-LJO-MJS Document 7 Filed 12/19/14 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Venue transfer is a non-dispositive matter and, thus, it falls within the scope of the

jurisdiction of the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

P:\PRO-SE\DMR\CR.14\Segura5216.transfer.wpd 2

Nelson v. Sandritter, 351 F.2d 284, 285 (9th Cir. 1965) (constitutionality of state civil commitment

proceedings are challenged in federal habeas corpus once state remedies have been exhausted). 

Plaintiff may challenge the validity of his assessment in this Court, but he must do so by way of a

habeas petition filed in a separate action from the instant civil rights case, after exhausting state

judicial remedies. 

Accordingly, and in the interests of justice, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of California.1 See 28 U.S.C. 1404(a), 1406(a). The Clerk

shall transfer the case forthwith. 

All remaining motions are TERMINATED on this Court’s docket as no longer pending in

this district.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 12/19/2014

 

DONNA M. RYU

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:14-cv-02047-LJO-MJS Document 7 Filed 12/19/14 Page 2 of 2