Huftile

Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 9, 200503-16734California2,843 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. Background

Michael Huftile filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint seeking damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief against Dr. L.C. Miccio-Fonseca in federal district court on July 17, 2003. When he filed the complaint, Huftile was being detained under California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act (“SVPA”). The SVPA provides for a two-year term of civil commitment if a court or jury determines beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual is a “sexually violent predator.” Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6604. Huftile contends that Dr. Miccio- Fonseca’s “policies, practices, and customs” in performing an SVPA evaluation of him violated his constitutional rights to due process, privacy, and equal protection.

The events underlying Huftile’s complaint occurred when Huftile was incarcerated at California Men’s Colony in San Luis Obispo. According to Huftile’s complaint, Dr. Miccio- HUFTILE v. MICCIO-FONSECA 6793 Fonseca met with him on February 2, 2001, to initiate an SVPA evaluation. Dr. Miccio-Fonseca presented Huftile with a “Notice of Evaluation as a Sexually Violent Predator.” Huf- tile signed the form to indicate that he refused to be inter- viewed by Dr.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.