Williams v. Phillips CA1/5

Filed 06/30/16 Williams v. Phillips CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE

MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff and Appellant, A146843

v. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. P0601270) DEBI PHILLIPS,

Defendant and Respondent. ______________________________________/

Plaintiff Michael B. Williams is committed to Coalinga State Hospital (the Hospital) as a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP, Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.). Williams inherited money, and it was placed in his personal deposit fund (account) at the Hospital (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 7281). The Hospital later withdrew money from the account as payment for the cost of Williams’s care. Williams sued the Hospital’s trust and benefits officer, Debi Phillips, and others in federal court alleging, among other things, the withdrawal violated his rights to due process and equal protection under the federal Constitution.1 The district court dismissed the lawsuit.

1 Unless noted, all further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. We grant respondent’s unopposed motion for judicial notice of documents filed in Williams v. Phillips, et al., United States District Court, Eastern District of California, case number 1:11-CV-00456-GBC (federal lawsuit). (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (a).) 1

Williams filed a motion in superior court to compel the Hospital and Phillips to comply with a probate court distribution order. The trial court denied the motion. Williams appeals in propria persona, contending: (1) the Hospital may not withdraw money from his account; (2) the withdrawal violated his right to equal protection under the state Constitution; and (3) the denial of his motion contravenes In re Jerald C. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 1 (Jerald C.). We disagree and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Williams, a SVP, is a patient at the Hospital. In 2008, Williams inherited $15,587 from his father’s estate, and — pursuant to the probate court’s September 2, 2008 final distribution order (distribution order) — the money was placed in Williams’s account at the Hospital. In 2010, the Hospital notified Williams it intended to withdraw $10,525 from the account pursuant to section 7281 for the cost of his care and treatment.2 Williams’s administrative appeal was denied, and the Hospital withdrew $10,525 from his account. Federal Lawsuit Williams filed the federal lawsuit in propria persona. The operative first amended complaint alleged the withdrawal violated the due process, equal protection, and takings clauses of the federal Constitution. The complaint also alleged the withdrawal violated the “no contest” clause in Williams’s father’s will, and that Williams was entitled to interest on the money in the account. The district court dismissed the complaint without leave to amend. It determined: (1) there was no due process violation because Williams received notice of the intended withdrawal and neither due process nor section 7281 required the Hospital to obtain his consent before withdrawing money from the account; (2) there was no equal protection violation because Williams was not similarly situated to a patients receiving Social Security benefits; (3) there was no takings clause violation because section 7281 authorized the Hospital to use amounts over $500 in the account for