Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00145/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00145-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cymeyon Hill
Plaintiff
Michael Savage
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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CYMEYON HILL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MICHAEL SAVAGE, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:20-cv-0145 AC P 

ORDER and 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

I. Introduction 

 Plaintiff is a civil detainee1 proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint filed pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915. This action is referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c). For the following reasons, plaintiff’s request to 

proceed in forma pauperis is granted; however, the undersigned recommends that this action be 

 

1

 Although plaintiff states he is currently incarcerated in Salinas Valley State Prison, his further 

assertion he is a civil detainee is supported by the fact that the Inmate Locator Website operated 

by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) does not identify 

plaintiff as a CDCR inmate. See http://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/ (Inmate Locator website 

operated by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation). This Court may take 

judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate determination by sources whose accuracy 

cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201; see also City of Sausalito v. O'Neill, 386 

F.3d 1186, 1224 n.2 (9th Cir. 2004) (“We may take judicial notice of a record of a state agency 

not subject to reasonable dispute.”). 

Case 2:20-cv-00145-JAM-AC Document 6 Filed 01/30/20 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 

dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim. 

II. In Forma Pauperis Application 

Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit and prison trust account statement that make the 

showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See ECF No. 2. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request to 

proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 

III. Screening of Plaintiff’s Complaint 

 A. Legal Standards 

Although plaintiff is a civil detainee rather than a prisoner, he is proceeding in forma 

pauperis and his complaint is therefore subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

Under § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has 

raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” “fail[] to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted,” or “seek[] monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. 

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 

1984). 

“A document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed,’ and ‘a pro se complaint, however 

inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by 

lawyers.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 

106 (1976) (internal quotation marks omitted)). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e) (“Pleadings shall be 

so construed as to do justice.”). Additionally, a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the 

deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies 

cannot be cured by amendment. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987). 

 B. Plaintiff’s Allegations 

 Plaintiff sues Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Michael Savage following his 

denial of plaintiff’s application for release under California Penal Code section 1026(a) 

(authorizing a person who has been committed to a state facility upon a finding of not guilty by 

reason of insanity to apply for release in the superior court that issued the commitment order). 

Plaintiff alleges that Judge Savage denied his application “with no clear explanation” and failed 

Case 2:20-cv-00145-JAM-AC Document 6 Filed 01/30/20 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 

to respond when plaintiff resubmitted his application. ECF No. 1 at 3. Plaintiff asserts that Judge 

Savage’s conduct has deprived him of due process and his “physical liberty to access the courts.” 

Id. Plaintiff seeks $750,000 in damages and a lien on defendant’s retirement fund. 

 C. Analysis 

 Plaintiff’s claims against the sole defendant, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge 

Savage, are barred by judicial immunity. “Like other forms of official immunity, judicial 

immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages.” Mireles v. 

Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991). “[T]he necessary inquiry in determining whether a defendant judge 

is immune from suit is whether at the time he took the challenged action he had jurisdiction over 

the subject matter before him. . . . . [T]he scope of the judge’s jurisdiction must be construed 

broadly where the issue is the immunity of the judge. A judge will not be deprived of immunity 

because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; 

rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the clear absence of all 

jurisdiction.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (internal citations and quotation 

marks omitted). 

 Here plaintiff does not assert that defendant was without jurisdiction to render his decision 

on plaintiff’s application, only that defendant failed to adequately explain his decision, then failed 

to consider plaintiff’s resubmission of his application. 

 To the extent plaintiff is attempting to challenge his continued civil commitment, his 

federal remedy is a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, after he 

exhausts state judicial remedies. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Civilly 

committed persons may pursue habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 to challenge their 

involuntary civil commitment. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 176 (2001) (stating that a state 

court order of civil commitment satisfies Section 2254’s “in custody” requirement); Huftile v. 

Miccio–Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1139–40 (9th Cir.2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1166 (2006) 

(“[D]etainees under an involuntary civil commitment scheme ... may use a § 2254 habeas petition 

to challenge a term of confinement.”). A civil rights action under Section 1983 is the proper 

vehicle to challenge conditions of confinement; a habeas corpus petition is the sole federal 

Case 2:20-cv-00145-JAM-AC Document 6 Filed 01/30/20 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 

vehicle for challenging the fact or duration of confinement. Preiser, 411 U.S at 498-99. 

 Moreover, plaintiff’s pursuit of damages based on his continuing commitment is barred. 

In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the United States Supreme Court held that when a 

state prisoner seeks damages in a Section 1983 suit, the district court must consider whether a 

judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or 

sentence. If it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless plaintiff can demonstrate that the 

conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. Id. at 487. The Ninth Circuit has held that 

the “favorable termination” rule of Heck applies equally to Section 1983 claims that imply the 

invalidity of a plaintiff’s civil commitment. Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th 

Cir. 2005). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that “Heck’s favorable termination rule was intended to 

prevent a person in custody from using § 1983 to circumvent the more stringent requirements for 

habeas corpus,” and thus applies not only to prisoners, but to other persons who are “in custody” 

and thus have access to habeas relief. Id. at 1139. Because civilly committed persons have 

access to habeas relief to obtain release from custody, Heck requires a civilly committed person 

to invalidate his civil commitment before pursuing a Section 1983 damages claim implying that 

his commitment is invalid. Id. at 1140. Unless plaintiff succeeds in invalidating his civil 

commitment in state proceedings or by federal habeas petition, he may not pursue Section 1983 

claims premised on its alleged invalidity. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. 

 Finally, plaintiff’s claim he has been denied access to the courts is without merit. To state 

a denial of access claim under the First Amendment, a prisoner must plausibly allege that he 

suffered an “actual injury” as a result of the defendant’s challenged conduct that hindered 

plaintiff’s efforts to pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351-55 

(1996). The court finds plaintiff’s attempted legal claims in this case to be patently frivolous. 

 This court is persuaded that plaintiff is unable to allege any facts, based upon the 

circumstances he challenges, that would state a cognizable claim and, therefore, that amendment 

of the complaint would be futile. 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:20-cv-00145-JAM-AC Document 6 Filed 01/30/20 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 

 IV. Conclusion 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. 

 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to randomly assign a district judge to this action. 

 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without leave to 

amend for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, see 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 21 days after 

being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 

the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within 

the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: January 30, 2020 

Case 2:20-cv-00145-JAM-AC Document 6 Filed 01/30/20 Page 5 of 5