Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01804/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01804-1/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAM CONSIGLIO, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT WITHDROW,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:15-cv-01804-MJS (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF NO. 1)

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN 

THIRTY (30) DAYS

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate 

Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 4.) No other parties have appeared in the action. 

Plaintiff’s complaint is before the Court for screening.

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The in forma pauperis statute provides, “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any 

portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if 

the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

II. PLEADING STANDARD

Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of any rights, 

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Case 1:15-cv-01804-MJS Document 6 Filed 01/11/16 Page 1 of 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

2

Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983).

Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for 

vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 

(1989).

To state a claim under § 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) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state 

law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 

1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).

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)(2). 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, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). 

Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief 

that is plausible on its face.” Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere 

possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are 

accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 677-78.

III. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is detained at Coalinga State Hospital (“CSH”).

The only named Defendant in this action is Robert Withdrow, M.D., Director of 

CSH. Plaintiff’s allegations may be summarized essentially as follows.

Plaintiff is being held at CSH against his will. He does not have a mental disorder. 

San Diego County and the Department of State Hospitals fabricated a mental disorder in 

order to detain Plaintiff. He has been detained for three years. He has not had annual 

evaluations as required under state law. He seeks release from custody.

Case 1:15-cv-01804-MJS Document 6 Filed 01/11/16 Page 2 of 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

3

IV. ANALYSIS

The exclusive method for challenging the fact or duration of Plaintiff’s confinement 

is by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 

(2005). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Such claims may not be brought in a section 1983 

action. Nor may Plaintiff seek to invalidate the fact or duration of his confinement 

indirectly through a judicial determination that necessarily implies the unlawfulness of the 

State’s custody. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 81. A section 1983 action is barred, no matter the 

relief sought, if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of 

confinement or its duration. Id. at 81-82; Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 489 (1994) 

(unless and until favorable termination of the conviction or sentence, no cause of action 

under section 1983 exists); Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 

2005) (applying Heck to SVPA detainees with access to habeas relief). 

Plaintiff’s claims here directly challenge his custody. He may not bring these

claims in a section 1983 action. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 78. Until Plaintiff’s civil detention 

has been “reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a 

state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal 

court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus,” Plaintiff is barred from bringing his claims 

under section 1983. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. He instead must pursue his claims in an 

action for a writ of habeas corpus.

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s claims, either directly or indirectly, challenge the validity of his 

confinement, a challenge which may be brought only in a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to state any claims that are cognizable under section 

1983. Leave to amend would appear to be futile, as Plaintiff is likely unable to cure this 

defect. Nonetheless, the Court will afford Plaintiff one opportunity to amend in order to 

state claims, if any he has, that do not implicate the fact or duration of his confinement.

See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Case 1:15-cv-01804-MJS Document 6 Filed 01/11/16 Page 3 of 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

4

If Plaintiff chooses to amend, he must demonstrate that the alleged acts resulted 

in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78. Plaintiff must set 

forth “sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. at 678 

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must also demonstrate that each 

named Defendant personally participated in a deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 

297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).

Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it 

is not for the purposes of adding new claims. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th 

Cir. 2007). Plaintiff should carefully read this screening order and focus his efforts on 

curing the deficiencies set forth above.

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, 

an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 

55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no 

longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be 

sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “First 

Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed 

under penalty of perjury. Plaintiff's amended complaint should be brief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(a). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a 

right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations 

omitted).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff (1) a blank civil rights complaint form and 

(2) a copy of his complaint, filed December 2, 2015;

2. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted;

Case 1:15-cv-01804-MJS Document 6 Filed 01/11/16 Page 4 of 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

5

3. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the 

Court will dismiss this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim and 

failure to comply with a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01804-MJS Document 6 Filed 01/11/16 Page 5 of 5