HYDRICK v. HUNTER
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an order in HYDRICK v. HUNTER, No. 03-56712, a prisoner appeal. The panel consisted of Mary M. Schroeder, Chief Judge, Harry Pregerson and Stephen S. Trott, Circuit Judges.
PREGERSON, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiffs-Appellees represent a class of approximately six hundred civilly committed persons and those awaiting commitment at Atascadero State Hospital pursuant to California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act (”SVP Act”). 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. The district court denied the motion, which the Defendants now appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291; we affirm in part and reverse in part. . . .
The opinion in this case published at 466 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006), is withdrawn and replaced by the new opinion and dissent filed concurrently with this order. Chief Judge Schroeder and Judge Pregerson voted to deny appellant’s petition for panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc. Judge Trott voted to grant the petition for panel rehearing and recommended granting the petition for rehearing en banc. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc, and no judge of the court has requested en banc rehearing. See Fed. R. App. P. 35(b). The petitions for panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing will be entertained. OPINION PREGERSON, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiffs-Appellees represent a class of approximately six hundred civilly committed persons and those awaiting commitment at Atascadero State Hospital pursuant to California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act (”SVP Act”). 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. The district court denied the motion, which the Defendants now appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291; we affirm in part and reverse in part. . . .
TROTT, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I My disagreement with my colleagues is limited to one critical 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 personally for acts and omissions alleged to have . . .