Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00830/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00830-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aaron Klein
Plaintiff
Kathleen Longwell
Defendant
Michael Musacco
Defendant

Document Text:

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

AARON KLEIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

KATHLEEN LONGWELL, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:15-cv-00830-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. His 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, 

Case 1:15-cv-00830-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 11
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

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

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 a Sexually Violent Predator (“SVP”) at Coalinga State 

Hospital (“CSH”). He names as Defendants the following persons in their individual

capacities: (1) Kathleen Longwell, Ph.D., Psychologist for the Department of State 

Hospitals (“DSH”); and (2) Michael Musacco, Ph.D., Psychologist for DSH.

Plaintiff’s allegations may be summarized essentially as follows.

Defendant Musacco evaluated Plaintiff in 2012 and 2013. During the course of his 

evaluations, Defendant Musacco requested and relied upon information concerning 

Case 1:15-cv-00830-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 06/26/15 Page 2 of 11
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’s juvenile offenses. The information was erroneous and the offenses were not 

qualifying offenses under the applicable provisions of the California Welfare and 

Institutions Code. Defendant Musacco testified that he would not have diagnosed 

Plaintiff with pedophilia had he not seen information concerning Plaintiff’s juvenile 

offenses. Defendant Longwell also referred to Plaintiff’s juvenile police reports in her 

evaluations. Although not entirely clear from the complaint, Plaintiff apparently was 

adjudicated a SVP based at least in part on these evaluations. 

Plaintiff claims that reliance on his juvenile offenses violated his rights to Equal 

Protection and Due Process, and violated the California Welfare and Institutions Code.

Plaintiff seeks to have Defendants removed from his case and requests

independent evaluations and a new probable cause hearing.

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Plaintiff’s Prior Related Case

This is not Plaintiff’s first case challenging the assessments used in adjudicating 

him a SVP. The Court takes judicial notice of Klein v. King, No. 14-cv-1440-MJS, in 

which Plaintiff raised a similar, although more generalized, challenge. In that action, 

Plaintiff was advised that his claims were cognizable only in habeas corpus and that, in 

any event, his allegations failed to state a due process claim. (ECF No. 12, in Case No. 

14-cv-1440-MJS.) Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, and the action 

was closed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

The same legal standards are applicable to the present action. Accordingly, the 

Court reiterates herein much of its ruling in Case No. 14-cv-1440-MJS.

B. Overview of Sexually Violent Predator Act

The Sexually Violent Predator Act (“SVPA”), California Welfare and Institutions 

Code §§ 6600 et seq., provides for the civil commitment of “a person who has been 

convicted of a sexually violent offense against one or more victims and who has a 

diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of 

Case 1:15-cv-00830-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 06/26/15 Page 3 of 11
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

others in that it is likely that he or she will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior.” 

Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6600(a)(1). The SVPA codifies a process involving several 

administrative and judicial stages to determine whether an individual meets the 

requirements for civil commitment. 

First, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and 

Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) screens inmates who may be sexually violent predators

at least six months prior to their scheduled release dates. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 

§ 6601(a)(1), (b). The screening is conducted in accordance with a structured screening 

instrument developed by the State Department of State Hospitals (“SDSH”). Cal. Welf. & 

Inst. Code § 6601(b). If CDCR and BPH determine that an individual “is likely to be a 

sexually violent predator,” CDCR refers the individual to the SDSH for a full evaluation. 

Id.

The SDSH employs a standardized assessment protocol to determine whether a

person is a sexually violent predator under Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6601(c). If two 

SDSH evaluators, or in some circumstances, two independent evaluators, determine that 

the person has “a diagnosed mental disorder so that he or she is likely to engage in acts 

of sexual violence without appropriate treatment and custody,” the Director of SDSH 

forwards a request for a petition for commitment to the applicable county. Cal. Welf. & 

Inst. Code § 6601(d)-(h).

If the county’s designated counsel agrees with the request, a petition for 

commitment is filed in Superior Court. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6601(i). “The filing of the 

petition triggers a new round of proceedings” under the SVPA. People v. Superior Court

(Ghilotti), 27 Cal. 4th 888, 904 (Cal. 2002). The petition is reviewed by a superior court 

judge to determine whether the petition “states or contains sufficient facts that, if true, 

would constitute probable cause to believe that the individual named in the petition is 

likely to engage in sexually violent predatory criminal behavior upon his or her release.” 

Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6601.5. If so found, a probable cause hearing is conducted, at 

Case 1:15-cv-00830-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 06/26/15 Page 4 of 11
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

which the alleged predator is entitled to the assistance of counsel. Cal. Welf. & Inst. 

Code §§ 6601.5, 6602(a). If, at the hearing, no probable cause is found, the petition is 

dismissed. Id. However, if probable cause is found, a trial is conducted. Id.

At trial, the individual is entitled to the assistance of counsel, to retain experts or 

other professionals to perform an examination on his or her behalf, and to access all 

relevant medical and psychological records and reports. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 

§ 6603(a). Either party may demand a jury trial. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6603(a)-(b). 

The trier of fact must determine whether the person is a sexually violent predator beyond 

a reasonable doubt. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6604. “If the court or jury determines that 

the person is a sexually violent predator, the person shall be committed for an 

indeterminate term to the custody of [SDSH] for appropriate treatment and confinement 

in a secure facility designated by the Director of State Hospitals.” Id.

Once committed, sexually violent predators must be reevaluated at least annually. 

Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6604.9(a). The annual report must include consideration of 

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

whether conditional release to a less restrictive alternative, pursuant to Section 6608, or 

an unconditional discharge, pursuant to 6605, is in the best interest of the person and 

conditions can be imposed that would adequately protect the community.” Cal. Welf. & 

Inst. Code § 6604.9(b). If SDSH has reason to believe the person is no longer a sexually 

violent predator, it shall seek judicial review of the commitment. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 

§ 6605(c). If SDSH determines that conditional release or unconditional discharge is 

appropriate, it shall authorize the committed person to petition the court for conditional 

release or unconditional discharge. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6604.9(d). The committed 

person also may petition the court for conditional release without the recommendation or 

concurrence of SDSH. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6608(a).

The court may deny a petition for conditional release without a hearing if it is 

based on frivolous grounds. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6608(a). If the petition is not based 

Case 1:15-cv-00830-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 06/26/15 Page 5 of 11
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

on frivolous grounds, the court shall hold a hearing to determine “whether the person 

committed would be a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that he 

or she will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior due to his or her diagnosed 

mental disorder if under supervision and treatment in the community.” Cal. Welf. & Inst. 

Code § 6608(g). The committed person has the right to counsel and the appointment of 

experts for the hearing. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6608(a), (g). The committed person 

bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, unless the SDSH’s 

annual reevaluation determines that conditional release is appropriate, in which case the 

State bears the burden of proof. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6608(k). If the court 

determines that the committed person would not be a danger while under supervision 

and treatment, the person shall be placed in a conditional release program for one year. 

Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6608(g). Thereafter, the committed person may petition the 

court for unconditional discharge. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6608(m).

If, upon receiving a petition for unconditional discharge, the court finds probable

cause to believe that the committed person is not a danger to the health and safety of 

others and is not likely to engage in sexually violent criminal behavior if discharged, a 

hearing is conducted. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6605(a)(2). At the hearing, the committed 

person is entitled to the same constitutional protections afforded at the initial trial. Cal. 

Welf. & Inst. Code § 6605(a)(3). Either party may demand a jury trial. Id. The state bears 

the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the committed person remains a 

danger to the health and safety of others and is likely to engage in sexually violent 

criminal behavior if discharged. Id. If the petition is resolved in the committed person’s

favor, he is unconditionally released and unconditionally discharged. Cal. Welf. & Inst. 

Code § 6605(b). 

C. Claims Cognizable Only in Habeas Corpus

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 

Case 1:15-cv-00830-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 06/26/15 Page 6 of 11
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

(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 request for new, independent evaluations and a new probable cause 

hearing attacks the very proceedings that led to his detention. He cannot be granted 

relief on this claim without invalidating his detention. He may not bring these claims in a 

section 1983 action. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 78.

Plaintiff’s claim that reliance on his juvenile offenses violated his Due Process and 

Equal Protection rights is barred on the same ground. See Huftile, 410 F.3d at 1141

(concluding that challenge to SVPA assessments would imply invalidity of civil 

commitment and therefore could only be brought in habeas corpus). To the extent his 

claims are based on the use of the assessments in his civil commitment proceedings, 

they present a direct challenge to the validity of his confinement, and may not be brought 

in this action. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 81. To the extent he attempts to assert due process

or equal protection rights in this assessment process itself, any claim as to the propriety 

of the assessments is so related to the civil commitment proceeding that success 

thereon would imply the invalidity of Plaintiff’s confinement: absent the allegedly deficient 

assessments, no petition for commitment would have been filed, and there would have 

been no basis for the Superior Court to proceed on the petition to civilly commit Plaintiff 

under the SVPA. Huftile, 410 F.3d at 1141. 

Case 1:15-cv-00830-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 06/26/15 Page 7 of 11
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

8

In sum, 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.

D. Removal of Defendants from Plaintiff’s Case

Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997), leaves open the possibility for 

Plaintiff to bring a section 1983 action seeking prospective relief that does not call into 

question the validity of his confinement. Plaintiff’s request that Defendants be removed 

from his case arguably brings the case into this category. Still, Plaintiff’s current 

allegations fail to state a cognizable claim. 

1. Due Process

Plaintiff may wish to allege that Defendants’ future assessments will violate his 

Due Process rights. However, Plaintiff does not identify any process due to him, under 

the SVPA or otherwise, that will be denied by Defendants’ continued participation in the 

assessment process. Significantly, the assessments are not determinative of whether 

Plaintiff’s detention should continue. Rather, Plaintiff may petition the court for 

conditional release without the recommendation or concurrence of SDSH. Cal. Welf. & 

Inst. Code § 6608(a). Plaintiff’s continued detention is determined by a judge at a 

hearing in which Plaintiff has the right to counsel and to retain experts to rebut the 

State’s assessments. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6608. His ultimate release from

commitment is determined by a judge or jury in a proceeding in which Plaintiff maintains 

the right to counsel and to retain experts, and the State bears the burden of proof 

beyond a reasonable doubt. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6605. The SVPA provides 

sufficient procedural mechanisms for Plaintiff to challenge the assessments, and to 

demonstrate that he no longer qualifies for civil detention. These protections are such 

that any flaws in the assessment process do not rise to a due process violation.

Case 1:15-cv-00830-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 06/26/15 Page 8 of 11
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

9

2. Equal Protection

Plaintiff also may wish to allege that Defendants’ future assessments will violate 

his right to Equal Protection. The Equal Protection Clause requires that persons who are 

similarly situated be treated alike. City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 

U.S. 432, 439 (1985). An equal protection claim may be established by showing that the 

defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff based on the plaintiff's 

membership in a protected class, Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir. 

2003), Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th Cir. 2001), or that similarly 

situated individuals were intentionally treated differently without a rational relationship to 

a legitimate state purpose, Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000); 

see also Lazy Y Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens, 546 F.3d 580, 592 (9th Cir. 2008); North 

Pacifica LLC v. City of Pacifica, 526 F.3d 478, 486 (9th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff has not 

alleged that he is a member of a protected class or that Defendants’ intentionally treat 

Plaintiff differently than others similarly situated. Accordingly, he fails to state an Equal 

Protection claim.

3. Violations of the SVPA

Plaintiff alleges Defendants’ reliance on Plaintiff’s juvenile offenses violates the 

SVPA. The existence of the SVPA does not necessarily entitle a detainee to sue civilly 

for its violation. The Court has found no authority to support a finding of an implied 

private right of action under the SVPA, and Plaintiff has provided none. 

Even if such a private right of action exists, the Court will not exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim absent a cognizable federal claim. 28 

U.S.C. § 1367(a); Herman Family Revocable Trust v. Teddy Bear, 254 F.3d 802, 805 

(9th Cir. 2001); see also Gini v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th 

Cir. 1994). “When . . . the court dismisses the federal claim leaving only state claims for 

resolution, the court should decline jurisdiction over the state claims and dismiss them 

without prejudice.” Les Shockley Racing v. National Hot Rod Ass’n, 884 F.2d 504, 509 

Case 1:15-cv-00830-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 06/26/15 Page 9 of 11
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

10

(9th Cir. 1989).

Because Plaintiff has not alleged any cognizable federal claims, the Court will not 

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claim. Plaintiff may amend his state 

law claim, but if he fails to allege a viable federal claim in his amended complaint, the 

Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1367(a); Herman Family Revocable Trust, 254 F.3d at 805.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that this allegation fails to state a cognizable 

claim. 

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s claims for new assessments and a new due process hearing challenge 

the validity of his confinement and may be brought only in a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus. To the extent Plaintiff seeks prospective relief from future assessments, he has 

failed to state a cognizable claim. These deficiencies likely cannot be cured through 

amendment. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012). Nevertheless, 

Plaintiff will be given leave to amend his section 1983 claims. If he chooses to do so, he 

must allege facts to show that future assessments will violate his rights under the 

standards set forth above, and that relief in this action will not call into question the 

validity of his current confinement, either directly or indirectly. 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 

Case 1:15-cv-00830-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 06/26/15 Page 10 of 11
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

11

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 June 1, 2015;

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

which relief may be granted;

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: June 26, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00830-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 06/26/15 Page 11 of 11