(PC) Spearman v. Department of State Hospitals, No. 2:2021cv01213 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/24/21 ORDERING Service is appropriate for defendant Stephanie Clendenin. The clerk of court shall send plaintiff 1 USM-285 form, instruction sheet, 1 summons and a copy of the 11/04/21 amended complaint to be completed and returned with the notice of submission of documents within 30 days. Also, RECOMMENDING that defendant California Department of State Hospitals be dismissed; and plaintiff's claim that his right under the Speed Trial Rights Act be dismissed. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days.(Plummer, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Spearman v. Department of State Hospitals Doc. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REGINALD EDWARD SPEARMAN, 12 13 14 No. 2:21-cv-1213 TLN KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS STEPHANIE CLENDENIN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, presently housed in the county jail, appears pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed October 8, 2021, plaintiff’s 19 complaint was dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended 20 complaint. 21 Plaintiff alleges defendants violated his right to a speedy trial and his due process rights 22 under the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to timely place plaintiff in a state mental hospital for 23 treatment, as ordered by the state court on March 3, 2021, finding plaintiff incompetent to stand 24 trial, and also failing to treat plaintiff. Plaintiff names as defendants Stephanie Clendenin, 25 director of the State Department of State Hospitals, as well as the California Department of State 26 Hospitals. Plaintiff seeks money damages. 27 28 The amended complaint states a potentially cognizable due process claim for relief against defendant Stephanie Clendenin pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If the 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 allegations of the amended complaint are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail 2 on the merits of this action. 3 On the other hand, plaintiff fails to state cognizable civil rights claims against the 4 defendant California Department of State Hospitals, and plaintiff’s allegation that his right to a 5 speedy trial is being violated also fails to state a cognizable claim. 6 The California Department of State Hospitals is a state agency. The Eleventh Amendment 7 serves as a jurisdictional bar to suits brought by private parties against a state or state agency in 8 its official capacity unless the state or the agency consents to such suit. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 9 U.S. 332 (1979); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978) (per curiam); Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 10 F.2d 1344, 1349-50 (9th Cir. 1982). In the instant case, the State of California has not consented 11 to suit. Thus, plaintiff’s claims against the California Department of State Hospitals is frivolous 12 and must be dismissed. 13 In addition, plaintiff’s claim under the Speedy Trial Act should also be dismissed. The 14 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has explained that due process -- not the right to a speedy 15 trial -- governs pretrial detention. See Trueblood v. Washington State Dep’t of Soc. & Health 16 Servs., 822 F.3d 1037, 1042-44 (9th Cir. 2016), overruled on other grounds by 822 F.3d 1037 17 (9th Cir. 2016). The court explained that the right to a speedy trial is “ill-suited” to claims based 18 on pretrial detention, because the claims do not arise from a delay in the criminal proceedings. 19 Rather, “[t]heir complaint is that they should receive a timely determination of competency -- a 20 go or no-go decision on whether their criminal proceedings will move forward and whether they 21 are eligible for restorative services.” Id. at 1043. “Many of them will never be tried, or might not 22 be tried until after a lengthy restorative treatment process. Their focus is not the guarantee of a 23 speedy trial.” Id. at 1043-44. Thus, plaintiff cannot state a cognizable Speedy Trial Act claim 24 based on allegations resting solely on competency-related delays. 25 Therefore, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s Speedy Trial Act claim and 26 defendant California Department of State Hospitals be dismissed without prejudice. This action 27 should proceed solely as to plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claims against 28 defendant Stephanie Clendenin. 2 1 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Service is appropriate for defendant Stephanie Clendenin; 3 2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff one USM-285 forms, one summons, an 4 5 instruction sheet and a copy of the amended complaint filed November 4, 2021. 3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 6 Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court: 7 a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents; 8 b. One completed summons; 9 c. One completed USM-285 form for defendant Stephanie Clendenin; and 10 d. Two copies of the endorsed amended complaint filed November 4, 2021. 11 4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendant and need not request waiver of service. 12 Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States Marshal to 13 serve the above-named defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment 14 of costs. 15 Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that: 16 1. Defendant California Department of State Hospitals be dismissed; and 17 2. Plaintiff’s claim that his rights under the Speedy Trial Rights Act be dismissed. 18 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 19 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 20 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 21 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 22 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 23 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 24 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 25 Dated: November 24, 2021 26 27 /spea1213.1amd.56 28 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REGINALD EDWARD SPEARMAN, 12 13 14 No. 2:21-cv-1213 TLN KJN P Plaintiff, v. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS STEPHANIE CLENDENIN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order filed _____________________ : 19 ____ completed summons form 20 ____ completed USM-285 forms 21 ____ copies of the ___________________ Amended Complaint 22 23 DATED: 24 25 26 ________________________________ Plaintiff 27 28 1
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
