Williams v. Philips, 080213 FED9, 12-15956

Docket Nº:12-15956
Party Name:MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEBBIE PHILIPS, Patient's Trust Officer at Coalinga State Hospital; PAM AHLIN, Defendants-Appellees.
Judge Panel:Before: ALARC
Case Date:August 02, 2013
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DEBBIE PHILIPS, Patient's Trust Officer at Coalinga State Hospital; PAM AHLIN, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-15956

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

August 2, 2013

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted July 24, 2013 [***]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Gerald B. Cohn, Magistrate Judge, Presiding[**] D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00456-GBC

Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [*]

Michael B. Williams, a civil detainee confined at Coalinga State Hospital pursuant to California's Sexually Violent Predator Act, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that a withdrawal of funds from his patient trust account violated his federal constitutional rights and the no-contest clause of his father's will. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim, Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Williams's equal protection claim because Williams failed to allege facts demonstrating that defendants intentionally and without rational basis treated him differently from others similarly situated and intentionally discriminated against him. See N. Pacifica LLC v. City of Pacifica, 526 F.3d 478, 486 (9th Cir. 2008) (elements of equal protection claim).

The district court properly dismissed Williams's due process claim because the Notice of Intended Withdrawal and denial of Williams's appeal, included as exhibits to the First Amended Complaint, showed that Williams received all of the process that he was due. See Brady v. Gebbie, 859 F.2d 1543, 1554 (9th Cir. 1988) (due process requires notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard).

The district court properly dismissed Williams's takings claim because Williams failed to allege facts demonstrating that his funds were taken for public use. See Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 7281 (sums exceeding $500 in a patient's personal deposit fund "may be applied to the payment of the care, support, maintenance, and medical attention of the patient"); Ward v. Ryan, 623 F.3d 807, 810 (9th Cir. 2010) (elements of a takings claim).

The district court properly dismissed Williams's state law claim alleging that defendants...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP