Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

IRVIN v. KITTERMAN

November 2, 2005.

STEVEN DERRICK IRVIN, Plaintiff,
v.
DENNIS KITTERMAN, et al., Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: BARBARA MAJOR, Magistrate Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 12 (B) (6) MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING DEFENDANTS' 12 (B) (UNENUMERATED) MOTION TO DISMISS
[Doc. No. 20]
On July 25, 2005, Defendants B Koen and Dennis Kitterman ("Defendants") filed a motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 20]. Pursuant to the Court's briefing schedule [Doc. No. 25], Plaintiff Steven Derrick Irvin timely opposed the motion on August 18, 2005. Defendants did not file a reply. As set forth in the Court's July 27, 2005 briefing schedule, the Court took the motion under submission, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1 (d) (1), upon completion of the briefing.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

  On May 4, 2004, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is currently civilly detained under California's Sexually Violent Predators Act ("SVPA") in Los Angeles County Jail's Twin Towers Correctional Facility. In his Complaint, Plaintiff raised various claims against ten defendants relating to his classification as a Sexually Violent Predator ("SVP").

  By order dated June 1, 2004, the district judge in this case granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed the Complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e) (2) (b) (ii). Doc. No. 3. On June 22, 2004, Plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the court's order. Doc. No. 5. The court denied his request without prejudice and allowed Plaintiff until October 1, 2004 to file a first amended complaint. Doc. No. 7.

  On September 30, 2004, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). Doc. No. 8. By order dated January 13, 2005, the district judge dismissed all claims in the FAC against all Defendants without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e) (2) with the exception of Plaintiff's retaliation claim against Defendants Kitterman, Koen, and Sanders. Doc. No. 9. The district judge granted Plaintiff forty-five days to either (1) file a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies in the FAC or (2) request that the court direct the United States Marshal to serve a copy of the FAC, as limited by the order. Id. In a request dated February 10, 2005, Plaintiff opted to proceed with the retaliation claim against Defendants Kitterman, Koen, and Sanders, as set forth in his FAC. Doc. No. 13. Defendants Kitterman and Koen waived service. Doc. Nos. 17, 19. To date, the Marshal has been unable to effect service on Defendant Sanders. See Doc. Nos. 18, 27 (notices regarding unsuccessful attempts to service Defendant Sanders).

  On July 25, 2005, Defendants Kitterman and Koen jointly filed a motion to dismiss the FAC pursuant to Rule 12 (b) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Defendants moved to dismiss the FAC as untimely pursuant to Rule 12 (b) (6) and as unexhausted pursuant to Rule 12 (b) (unenumerated). As set forth above, Plaintiff timely opposed the motion and the Court took the matter under submission.

  FACTUAL BACKGROUND

  Plaintiff sets forth the following allegations in his FAC:

  Plaintiff was incarcerated in Calipatria State Prison from at least November of 1999 through February of 2000. FAC at 7, 26. He was scheduled to be released from prison on February 17, 2000. Id. at 7, Ex. B. While in prison, Plaintiff instituted a civil rights suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California against various California Department of Corrections employees (Irvin v. Khoury, No. CIV-S-92-1656 FCD (GGH)). Id. at 7. During the course of that litigation, Plaintiff refused to sign a settlement agreement. Id.

  On November 23, 1999, R. Delgado, a Correctional Counselor I, reviewed Plaintiff's central file to determine whether Plaintiff met the criteria to be designated a sexually violent predator ("SVP") as defined in California Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. Id. at 7. Allegedly in retaliation for Plaintiff's refusal to sign the settlement agreement in Irvin v. Khoury, Defendant B. Koen, a Correctional Counselor II, referred Plaintiff to the Board of Prison Terms as a potential SVP on December 14, 1999. Id. at 7, Ex. B. On or before February 17, 2000, Defendant Kitterman, the Calipatria State Prison Litigation Coordinator, informed Plaintiff that the SVP proceedings would be dropped and Plaintiff would be released from custody if Plaintiff signed the settlement agreement. Id. at 9.

  Plaintiff refused to sign the settlement agreement, and SVP proceedings were initiated. Id. at 7-8. As a result, the Department of Corrections did not parole Plaintiff on February 17, 2000. Rather, Defendant Sanders placed an allegedly "unauthorized 72 hour hold" on Plaintiff pursuant to Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2600.1, even though Sanders knew that California Welfare & Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. did not authorize the parole hold. Id. at 9, Ex. H. The hold is dated February 14, 2000, and states "hold effective 2/17/00." Id., Ex. H. On February 23, 2000, Plaintiff appeared for what he describes as a "mock" probable cause hearing. Id. at 10. Following the SVP probable cause hearing, Defendant Kitterman and the deputy attorney general allegedly directed the Board of Prison Terms Commissioner to place a forty-five day hold on Plaintiff's release and backdate the new hold to February 17, 2000. Id. at 11.

  Plaintiff claims that sometime after February 17, 2000, Koen and Sanders fabricated the chronological history in Plaintiff's central prison file in order to hide the fact that Plaintiff had been illegally held beyond his release date. Id. at 12-13. He alleges that the chronological history was altered to falsely state that probable cause was found on February 17, 2000 and to falsely indicate that the seventy-two hour hold was placed pursuant to California Welfare & Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. rather than pursuant to section 2600.1 of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations. Id. at 13. Plaintiff was transferred to Atascadero State Hospital on March 17, 2005, and was then transferred again to Los Angeles County's Twin Towers Correctional Facility on March 29, 2000. Id. at 14-15.

  STANDARD OF REVIEW

  A Rule 12 (b) (6) motion tests the legal sufficiency of a claim. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). "A court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations." Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (quoting Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984)); Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 338 (9th Cir. 1996). In deciding such a motion, the court accepts as true all material factual allegations of the complaint, including all reasonable inferences to be drawn from them, and construes them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 563 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2005). Dismissal is proper only where the complaint lacks a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.