Steven Daniel Force v. Melvin Hunter;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
09-56294
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN DANIEL FORCE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MELVIN HUNTER; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-56294
D.C. No. 2:05-cv-02534-SGL-RZ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen G. Larson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 22, 2010**
Before WALLACE, HAWKINS and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Steven Daniel Force (“Force”), a former civil detainee at Atascadero State
Hospital (“ASH”) under California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act, appeals pro se
the district court’s adverse summary judgment and its order dismissing Force’s
FILED
OCT 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-56294 2
state law claims in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging a decision by ASH
officials denying him visits from his minor niece and nephews.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants
because ASH’s policy barring visits from minor children within the age and gender
profiles of a civil detainee’s former victims is a legitimate, non-punitive
governmental interest. See Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 932 (9th Cir. 2004)
(civil detainees are subject to “[l]egitimate, non-punitive government interests”
such as “maintaining jail security, and effective management of [the] detention
facility”).
The district court properly dismissed Force’s California state law claims for
failure to present a claim under California Civil Code §§ 910 et seq. See Cal. Civ.
Code § 945.4 (prohibiting suits against California public entities for money
damages unless plaintiff complies with California’s civil claims procedure);
Ovando v. County of Los Angeles, 71 Cal. Rptr. 3d 415, 432 (Cal. App. 2008) (“A
plaintiff suing the state or a local public entity must allege facts demonstrating
either compliance with the claim presentation requirement or an excuse for
noncompliance as an essential element of the cause of action.”).
Force’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --