Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00277/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00277-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRUCE FUGATE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

GARY PHILP, et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 06-0277 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING

DEFENDANTS TO FILE

DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE

REGARDING SUCH MOTION;

GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Docket Nos. 2 & 6)

On January 17, 2006, plaintiff, a “sexually violent predator” under a civil commitment

to Atascadero State Hospital for renewable periods of two years under California's Sexually

Violent Predator Act, Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6600 ("SVPA"), and proceeding pro se, filed

the above-titled civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that during

the several months in which he was temporarily detained at the Humboldt County Jail,

beginning March 25, 2003, defendants violated his constitutional rights by housing him

under conditions that are both punitive and unlawful as applied to civil detainees.

Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Good

cause appearing, such leave is GRANTED. See Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1139-40 (9th

Cir. 2000) (holding financial reporting and filing fee requirements applicable to “prisoners”

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and (b) not applicable to individuals facing civil commitment

proceedings under SVPA).

///

///

Case 3:06-cv-00277-MMC Document 9 Filed 06/12/06 Page 1 of 5
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

2

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must dismiss a case filed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 at

any time if the court determines the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on

which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from

such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, however. 

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 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. West v.

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Legal Claims

As noted, plaintiff claims that while he was a detainee at the Humboldt County Jail he

was subjected to conditions of confinement that were punitive and unlawful as applied to

civil detainees. Specifically, he alleges he was transported to and from that facility with

inmates facing criminal charges, that he was subjected to a body cavity search, and that he

was housed with inmates facing criminal charges. 

A civil detainee awaiting adjudication is entitled to conditions of confinement that are

not punitive; a presumption of punitive conditions arises where such individual is detained

under conditions identical or similar to, or more restrictive than, those under which pretrial

criminal detainees are held, or where such individual is detained under conditions more

restrictive than those he would face upon civil commitment. See Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d

918, 934 (9th Cir. 2004). If the presumption applies, defendants are allowed to demonstrate

legitimate, non-punitive interests justifying the conditions under which a detainee awaiting

SVPA proceedings was held, and to show the restrictions imposed were not excessive in

relation to such interests. See id. at 934-35.

Although not every objectionable condition or restriction to which a plaintiff is

subjected as a civil detainee violates his federal constitutional rights, the allegations of

Case 3:06-cv-00277-MMC Document 9 Filed 06/12/06 Page 2 of 5
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

3

plaintiff herein, liberally construed, are sufficient to state a cognizable claim under § 1983 for

denial of the protections to which he is entitled under the Due Process Clause. 

CONCLUSION

1. The Clerk of the Court shall issue summons and the United States Marshall

shall serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint in this matter, all

attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon defendants Humboldt County Board of

Supervisors, Humboldt County Sheriff Gary Philp, and Trans Corp Transportation Company.

Additionally, the Clerk shall mail a courtesy copy of this order to plaintiff and to the Office

of the Humboldt County Counsel.

2. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the Court orders as follows:

a. No later than sixty (60) days from the date of this order, defendants

shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. The motion shall be

supported by adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 56. 

Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor qualified

immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If any defendant is of the opinion that

this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, he shall so inform the Court prior

to the date the summary judgment motion is due. 

All papers filed with the Court shall be promptly served on plaintiff.

b. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the

Court and served on defendants no later than thirty (30) days from the date defendants’

motion is filed. The Ninth Circuit has held that the following notice should be given to

plaintiffs:

The defendants have made a motion for summary 

judgment by which they seek to have your case dismissed. A

motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case. 

Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a

motion for summary judgment. Generally, summary judgment

must be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact--

that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect

the result of your case, the party who asked for summary

Case 3:06-cv-00277-MMC Document 9 Filed 06/12/06 Page 3 of 5
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

4

judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will

end your case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for

summary judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or

other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your

complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in

declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or

authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that

contradict the facts shown in the defendants’ declarations and

documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact

for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition,

summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. 

If summary judgment is granted in favor of defendants, your case

will be dismissed and there will be no trial.

See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc).

Plaintiff is advised to read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (holding party opposing summary judgment

must come forward with evidence showing triable issues of material fact on every essential

element of his claim). Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file an opposition to defendants'

motion for summary judgment may be deemed to be a consent by plaintiff to the granting of

the motion, and granting of judgment against plaintiff without a trial. See Ghazali v. Moran,

46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 653 (9th Cir.

1994). 

c. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after

plaintiff's opposition is filed. 

d. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is

due. No hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date. 

2. All communications by the plaintiff with the Court must be served on

defendants, or defendants’ counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy

of the document to defendants or defendants’ counsel.

3. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local

Rule 16-1 is required before the parties may conduct discovery.

4. It is plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a timely

Case 3:06-cv-00277-MMC Document 9 Filed 06/12/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

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).

5. Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable extensions will be

granted. However, the party making the motion for an extension of time is not relieved from

his or her duty to comply with the deadlines set by the Court merely by having made a

motion for an extension of time. The party making the motion must still meet the deadlines

set by the Court until an order addressing the motion for an extension of time is received. 

Any motion for an extension of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought to be

extended.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 12, 2006 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00277-MMC Document 9 Filed 06/12/06 Page 5 of 5