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.

Wilkins v. Mayberg

United States District Court, N.D. California

June 23, 2014

KEENAN G. WILKINS, Plaintiff,
v.
STEPHEN MAYBERG, et al., Defendants.

ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION; ADDRESSING PENDING MOTIONS (Docket Nos. 45, 46, 52.)

LUCY H. KOH, District Judge.

Plaintiff, currently housed at California State Prison - Sacramento, and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 11, 2011, the court dismissed this action with leave to amend, advising plaintiff that there were several deficiencies with his complaint that required plaintiff to file an amended complaint. On March 17, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On April 25, 2011, the court stayed the action pursuant to Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393 (2007). On August 7, 2013, the court granted plaintiff's motion to lift the stay and re-opened the action. On March 31, 2014, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, as directed by the court. For the reasons stated below, the court serves the second amended complaint on named defendants.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 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).

B. Legal Claims

Plaintiff is seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as damages. He alleges that in July 2007, the trial court ordered plaintiff to be transported from jail to a state mental hospital for a competency examination pending trial. The trial court ordered a written competency report to be completed within 90 days, and directed the Alameda County Sheriff's Office to transport plaintiff to Napa State Hospital within two weeks. The prosecution requested that the trial court issue an order for involuntary medication, and the trial court denied that request. In September 2007, plaintiff was still housed at the jail and had yet not been transported to Napa State Hospital. In fact, plaintiff was not transported to Napa State Hospital until November 2007, and no competency report was issued until March 2008. The trial court stated that the reason for the delay in transport was because Napa State Hospital refused to receive criminal defendants for competency restoration without an order for involuntary medication.

Liberally construed, plaintiff alleges a violation of substantive and procedural due process, see Oregon Advocacy Center v. Mink, 322 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2003), conspiracy to violate due process, and a violation of plaintiff's right to equal protection. These claims are filed against Stephen W. Mayberg, Director of the California Department of Mental Health; Dave Graziani, Executive Director of Napa State Hospital; Sheriff Gregory J. Ahern of the Alameda Sheriff's Office; the County of Alameda; the Alameda County Public Defenders' Office; and Deputy Public Defender James Mann.

To the extent plaintiff raises challenges of ineffective assistance against Deputy Public Defender James Mann, those claims are DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiff's re-filing them in a federal habeas petition.

Plaintiff's claim against Deputy Public Defender Judy Brown is DISMISSED. Plaintiff merely states that Deputy Public Defender Judy Brown failed to "take any action on the judge's orders of July 2007 to file an order to show cause if plaintiff was not transported to state hospital in two weeks." This does not state a constitutional claim for relief. If plaintiff is alleging that Deputy Public Defender Judy Brown rendered ineffective assistance of counsel, he may raise that claim in a federal habeas petition.

Plaintiff also states that he is raising a claim of false imprisonment. However, false imprisonment is not a federal claim, and plaintiff fails to support this allegation with any facts. Further, plaintiff does not state a sufficient connection between this allegation and any potentially liable defendant. Accordingly, plaintiff's claim of false imprisonment is DISMISSED.

Because plaintiff has already had two opportunities to amend his complaint, and the court previously advised plaintiff to state a sufficient connection between each defendant and each alleged violation, the claim against Deputy Public Defender Judy Brown ...


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.