# Roberts

> District Court, E.D. California · March 23, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11378160

## Case

- **Full name:** Gregory L. Cain v. Roberts, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** March 23, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11378160

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 GREGORY L. CAIN, Case No. 1:25-cv-00784-KES-BAM (PC)
12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION
13 v.
(ECF No. 1)
14 ROBERTS, et al.,
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
15 Defendants.
16
17
18 Plaintiff Gregory L. Cain (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma
19 pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to
20 California Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners
21 within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140
22 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on June 27, 2025, is currently before the Court for
23 screening. (ECF No. 1.)
24 I. Screening Requirement and Standard
25 The Court screens complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro se and in forma
26 pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to
27 dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
28 granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28
1 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
2 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
3 pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not
4 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
5 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell
6 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as
7 true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
8 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
9 To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires
10 sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable
11 for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret
12 Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully
13 is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility
14 standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
15 II. Summary of Plaintiff’s Allegations
16 Plaintiff is currently housed at Coalinga State Hospital. Plaintiff names the following
17 current and former United States Supreme Court Justices as defendants in their individual
18 capacities: (1) Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr; (2) Anton Scalia; (3) Anthony M. Kennedy; (4)
19 Clarence Thomas; (5) Ruth Bader Ginsberg; (6) Stephen G. Breyer; (7) Samuel A. Alto, Jr.; (8)
20 Sonia Sotomayor; (9) Elena Kagan. Plaintiff also names John and Jane Does.
21 Plaintiff’s complaint includes extensive argument, legal contentions, and conclusory
22 assertions. The Court generally condenses and summarizes Plaintiff’s allegations.
23 Plaintiff claims defendants engaged in a conspiracy to violate his constitutional rights. To
24 that end, he brings this action against defendants “for erroneously enacting and upholding a law
25 that infringes on the Civil and Constitutional Rights of the Plaintiff [and] violates his 1st, 4th, 5th,
26 8th, 9th, and 14th Amendments.” (ECF No. 1 at 2.) He contends that these defendants who caused
27 him “to be unconstitutionally committed are not entitled to absolute or qualified immunity from
28 liability for damages” and that they “are not shielded from damages liability on grounds that
1 enacting and upholding an unconstitutional law is so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to
2 render [their] belief in their act unreasonable.” (Id.)
3 Plaintiff alleges he is a civil detainee housed at the Department of State Hospitals-
4 Coalinga. He has been involuntarily confined there under the California SVPA for 18+ years.
5 Plaintiff asserts that defendants entered into a criminal conspiracy to create a civil rights violation
6 of the constitution. Among other things, Plaintiff alleges that defendants cannot avoid civil rights
7 liability “for causing the unconstitutional Civil Commitment of Plaintiff because it is not
8 objectively reasonable, for it created an unnecessary danger of emotional instability in Plaintiff.”
9 (ECF No. 1 at 3.)
10 Plaintiff claims that on September 12, 2017, defendants “had an opportunity to correct a
11 flawed doctrine that has plagued American Society for three decades. They have relied on junk
12 science to justify punishing more than 900,000+ Americans. The larger problem is that ‘Civil
13 Commitment’ has been justified by assertions about the recidivism of sex offenders.” (ECF No. 1
14 at 3.) Plaintiff contends that civil commitment is the most extreme example of punishments on
15 people convicted of sex crimes and defendants “have adopted a doctrine that allows for such
16 restrictions that are frightening and unchecked. It ascribes a recidivism rate of 80%, yet . . . the
17 80% is a an entirely invented number.” (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff further contends that “[t]he Solicitor
18 General Ted Olson, at the time cited it, and Justice Anthony Kennedy . . . adopted the figure in a
19 2002 opinion. Justices William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined.” (Id.)
20 Plaintiff alleges that 30 years since, there have been “hundreds of evidence-based, scientific
21 studies on the question of recidivism rate for sex offenders” and the “results of those studies are
22 astonishingly consistant [sic]: convicted sex offenders have among the LOWEST rates of same-
23 crime recidivism of any category of offenders.” (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that “Americans should be
24 able to look to our highest court and expect decisions that are based on sound reason not
25 misrepresentation of pseudo science and fear.” (Id.)
26 Plaintiff asserts that defendants “must be wise and brave when it comes to making and
27 interpreting the law, including being willing to acknowledge their mistake and finally correct the
28 record.” (ECF No. 1 at 4.) He asserts that more than 900,000+ Americans have “needlessly
1 suffered humiliation, ostracism, banishment, re-incarnation, and civil commitment thanks to a
2 judicial opinion based and grounded in an unsourced, unscientific study.” (Id. at 4-5.) Plaintiff
3 alleges defendants violated his rights by (1) failing to see the violation of statutory requirements
4 for release from confinement in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) failing to provide for
5 appropriate procedural protections in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; (3) failing to
6 follow policies, directives, regulations, and statutes in violation of the First Amendment.
7 Plaintiff argues that the qualified immunity defense does not shield those who knowingly
8 violate the law, which defendants “have done repeatedly by refusing to exercise reasonable
9 professional judgment.” (ECF No. 1 at 5.) Plaintiff claims that defendants knew that their
10 actions would violate the constitutional rights of Plaintiff. He further claims that by “upholding a
11 criminally illegal law that violates the rights of a class of citizens, [defendants] have opened a
12 venue of cruel and unusual punishment by the imposition of excessive confinement for the
13 ‘CRIME’ of being an SVP.” (Id.) Plaintiff argues that “the evidence supports a finding of
14 aggravating circumstances, whereas the emotional abuse is excessive and disproportionate to the
15 limits of Plaintiff’s mental state.” (Id.)
16 Plaintiff argues that the excessive confinement is imposed arbitrarily and capriciously and
17 the statutory scheme under which he was committed is not constitutional. He asserts that
18 defendants never confronted the fundamental claim of emotional distress and that excessive
19 confinement has led him to a state of depression and anxiety, “an unnecessary form of cruelty . . .
20 forbidden by the 8th and 14th Amendments.” (ECF No. 1 at 6.) He also asserts that defendants
21 have entered a civil rights conspiracy that has deprived him of liberty forbidden by the 8th and
22 14th Amendments and they “have entered into inhumane and barbarous mental torture of
23 Plaintiff’s emotional stability.” (Id. at 7.) He claims to have suffered substantial anxiety and
24 emotional distress for the 18+ years in addition to the original 6-year prison term and alleges that
25 defendants conspired to force him in excessive confinement.
26 Plaintiff variously alleges that defendants’ “bad faith action in breach of their fiduciary
27 duties, fraud, negligent misrepresentation of power and their positions of power is a violation of
28 the law,” (ECF No. 1 at 8), defendants “have been guilty of oppression fraud, and malice, express
1 or implied,” (id. at 8-9), defendants “acted with oppression, fraud and malice by being
2 deliberately indifferent to their interference with Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and that they
3 acquiesced in their conduct by failing to take adequate steps to prevent it,” (id. at 9), defendants
4 “conspired to defraud Plaintiff of his constitutional rights when they upheld the illegal SVPA
5 enacted by Congress,” (id.), and defendants “have elicited in a practice of negligence, breach of
6 duty and legal malpractice for the unprofessional failure to take actions to ensure Pilantiff’s Due
7 Process to safety,” (id. at 10).
8 Plaintiff further alleges that his excessive confinement due to the SVPA is double
9 jeopardy prohibited by the 5th amendment. Plaintiff contends that by virtue of his civil
10 commitment he has not been convicted of a new crime in many years yet has been civilly
11 detained for 18+ years after completing his original 6-year prison term. He also alleges that
12 elementary principles establish the Government’s obligation to provide for his emotional state
13 and if defendants fail to do so, such a failure “will actually produce emotional torture.” (ECF No.
14 1 at 11.) He asserts that civil commitment is a “Shadowy form of Incarceration” that the
15 defendants “brought to life when they enacted and upheld a law they knew to be illegal and
16 oppressive in nature and cause emotional scarring for life.” (Id.)
17 Plaintiff asserts that deliberate indifference on the part of defendants in the presence of a
18 known danger, created by defendants’ conduct, is sufficient to establish a due process violation
19 for the emotional injury caused by the defendants who created the danger. He contends that
20 defendants “participated in a conspiracy in creating dangerous conditions of emotional distress
21 which has led Plaintiff to being Depressed. They have acted with ill intent and Deliberate
22 Indifference to a known and obvious created danger in subjecting Plaintiff to the aftermath of
23 their actions.” (ECF No. 1 at 11.) Plaintiff claims that the complaint “holds facts demonstrating
24 official deliberate indifference in creating a known danger on the part of the [defendants], which
25 have to be found to have violated Plaintiffs’ federally protected constitutional rights. That they,
26 in creating this danger, acted with gross negligence, recklessness and deliberate indifference.”
27 (Id.)
28 Plaintiff contends that civil commitment facilities are not only legally and ethically
1 dubious, they also fail to deliver on the very objectives that justified their creation. In claiming
2 malicious persecution, Plaintiff asserts that the conduct of defendants is “not only insulting,
3 malicious, and aggravating, it is ‘atrocious’ and ‘utterly intolerable in a civilized society.’” (ECF
4 No. 1 at 13.) He asserts that continued confinement constitutes the intentional infliction of
5 emotional distress in violation of Fourteenth Amendment. He alleges defendants “have acted
6 negligently with regards to what Plaintiff’s mental state would be after 18+ years of continued
7 confinement. Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress that is serious and verifiable.” (Id. at 13-
8 14.) Plaintiff argues that it is “time for policymakers to right their wrong and close these so-
9 called ‘Civil Commitment Centers’, because they are noting [sic] more than glorified prisons.
10 These facilities leverage pseudoscience to keep people under federal and state control.” (Id. at
11 14.)
12 As relief, Plaintiff seeks his immediate release, reinstatement of his rights, declaratory and
13 injunctive relief, and monetary damages.
14 III. Discussion
15 A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
16 Pursuant to Rule 8, a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
17 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Detailed factual allegations
18 are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
19 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). Plaintiff must
20 set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on
21 its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations
22 are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–57; Moss,
23 572 F.3d at 969.
24 Plaintiff’s complaint is not short and plain statement of his claims. Rather, it includes
25 legal arguments, recitals of the elements of causes of action, and conclusory statements. The
26 complaint does not include sufficient factual matter to state a cognizable claim against any
27 defendant. As discussed below, Plaintiff’s complaint does not include any factual allegations
28 demonstrating that any defendant subjected or caused Plaintiff to be subjected to a violation of his
1 rights or establishing an actual connection or link between the actions of defendants and any
2 deprivation alleged to have been suffered by Plaintiff.
3 B. Linkage Requirement
4 The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

5 Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be
subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights,
6 privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the
party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for
7 redress.

8
42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between
9
the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by Plaintiff. See
10
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). The
11
Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional
12
right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s
13
affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the
14
deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
15
Plaintiff’s complaint fails to adequately include factual allegations establishing an actual
16
connection or link between the actions of the named defendants or the doe defendants to a
17
violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. There is no indication that any named defendant or
18
doe defendant was involved in or played any role in Plaintiff’s civil commitment or continued
19
confinement. Instead, Plaintiff alleges only that certain defendants rendered an opinion 2002 or
20
that defendants otherwise upheld laws. Further, Plaintiff’s conclusory statements are not
21
sufficient to adequately link defendants to a deprivation alleged to have been suffered by Plaintiff.
22
C. Judicial Immunity
23
Plaintiff brings suit against current and former United States Supreme Court Justices
24
regarding actions taken in their official capacities as justices. However, absolute immunity is
25
generally accorded to judges functioning in their official capacities. See Olsen v. Idaho State Bd.
26
of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir.2004). “Few doctrines were more solidly established at
27
common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within
28
1 their judicial jurisdiction.” Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553–54 (1967). Judicial immunity “is an
2 immunity from suit, not just from the ultimate assessment of damages.” Mireles v. Waco, 502
3 U.S. 9, 11 (1991); see also Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978) (“A judge will not be
4 deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in
5 excess of his authority.”).
6 Plaintiff’s allegations concern actions taken by the named defendants in rendering court
7 opinions. These defendants are entitled to judicial immunity and Plaintiff’s claims against them
8 are not cognizable.
9 D. Habeas Corpus and Heck v. Humphrey
10 It has long been established that state prisoners cannot challenge the fact or duration of
11 their confinement in a section 1983 action and their sole remedy lies in habeas corpus relief.
12 Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005). Often referred to as the favorable termination rule
13 or the Heck bar, this exception to section 1983’s otherwise broad scope applies whenever state
14 prisoners “seek to invalidate the duration of their confinement-either directly through an
15 injunction compelling speedier release or indirectly through a judicial determination that
16 necessarily implies the unlawfulness of the State’s custody.” Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 81; Heck v.
17 Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 482, 486–87 (1994); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 644 (1997).
18 Thus, “a state prisoner's [section] 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation)—no matter the
19 relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner's suit (state conduct
20 leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings)—if success in that action would necessarily
21 demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” Id. at 81–82. Heck’s favorable
22 termination rule also applies to civil detainees with access to habeas relief. Huftile v. Miccio-
23 Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1139–40 (9th Cir. 2005).
24 Although Plaintiff raises various claims, the crux of Plaintiff’s complaint is a challenge to
25 his civil commitment and continued confinement in a state hospital and his main request for relief
26 is immediate release. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to challenge “the very fact or duration of his
27 physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate
28 release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas
1 corpus.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); see also Simpson v. Ahlin, No. 1:15-cv-
2 01301-BAM (PC), 2016 WL 8731340, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2016) (petition for writ of
3 habeas corpus exclusive method for civil detainee to challenge the validity of his continued
4 commitment).
5 E. Futility of Amendment
6 “A pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint, and some notice of
7 its deficiencies, unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be
8 cured by amendment.” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). Because it does
9 not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be cured by amending the
10 complaint, leave to amend is not warranted. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th
11 Cir. 2000) (en banc).
12 IV. Conclusion and Recommendation
13 For the reasons stated, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with
14 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and fails to state a cognizable claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §
15 1983. Leave to amend is not warranted. Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that
16 this action be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted.
17
18 ***
19 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
20 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within
21 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may
22 file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to
23 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed
24 fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page
25 number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page
26 limit may not be considered. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the
27 ///
28 ///
1 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual
2 findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter
3 v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5

6 Dated: March 23, 2026 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7

8

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11378160. Public record. Not legal advice.