Hydrick
Hydrick v. Demorales
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Pregerson, J.
Plaintiffs-Appellees represent a class of approximately 600 civilly committed persons and those awaiting commitment at Atascadero State Hospital pursuant to California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act (“SVP Act”). In this suit, Plaintiffs allege that the conditions of their confinement violate their constitutional rights. They request declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as monetary damages. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss based largely on qualified immunity, but their motion was summarily denied by the district court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm in part, and reverse in part.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. California’s Sexually Violent Predators Scheme
The SVP Act defines an SVP as a person “convicted of a sexually violent offense against two or more victims for which he or she received a determinate sentence and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others” i.e., is “likely [to] engage in sexually violent criminal behavior.” See Cal. Welf. & Inst.Code § 6600(a). 2 At least six months before a person who has committed the predicate offenses is to complete his sentence, he is evaluated…
Concurrence in Part
Trott, J.
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
My disagreement with my colleagues is limited to one issue. We agree that plaintiffs cannot seek damages in this lawsuit against state officials in their official capacities, and that plaintiffs cannot seek damages from the State either. So, what is left where the officials are concerned? A lawsuit against them for acts and omissions alleged to have been taken in the discharge of their official duties, but as individuals, not officials. It is here that I part company.
On this record, and under these circumstances, I conclude, with all respect to my colleagues, that these officials as individuals are clearly entitled to qualified immuni *1005 ty against both suit and damages — now, not later. In my view, the particulars and the contours of the alleged constitutional rights upon which the plaintiffs rely were not so clearly established at the times under scrutiny and at the level of specificity required such that a reasonable official hired by the state to cope with lawfully confined sexually violent predators subject to remedial treatment would have been aware that the conduct alleged violated constitutional bounds. Given the unsettled…
Opinion
FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES ALLEN HYDRICK; DAVID
LANPHERE; SHAUNDALE GRIFFIN;
FRANK CISNEROS; PAUL PEDERSON;
STEVEN ROBERT CERNIGLIA; GARY
PRICE; DANIEL MROWICI; KENNETH
CIANCIO; MICHAEL MCCLURE; JAMES
MATA; RICHARD BISHOP; MELVIN
FIELDS; RON LEE; LEONARD PIERRE;
THOMAS PRICE; JIMMY GUTHRIE;
BRIAN KELLY; WOODROW JONES; No. 03-56712
VASHON JACKSON; BRUCE RILEY;
FRED SCOTT; DEAN DANFORTH; D.C. No.
CV-98-07167-TJH
SAMMY PAGE; JAMES PETERS;
GRAYLING MITCHELL; CARLOS OPINION
SAUCEDO; ANTHONY DACAYONA;
CHARLES SALAS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MELVIN E. HUNTER, aka/Jon DeMorales; CRAIG NELSON;
GRENDA ERNST,
Defendants-Appellants,
5921 5922 HYDRICK v. HUNTER
and