Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Joshua Forster, a civil detainee proceeding pro se, sued Stephanie Clendenin and others under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Eastern District of California. After screening, the case proceeds against Clendenin, Wallace and Van de Putte. His complaint alleges that patients in the sex offender treatment program at the Coalinga facility must complete polygraph and penile plethysmograph assessments to advance through certain treatment modules. He alleges he spent more than seven years in the program, finished the second module without those assessments, and was then refused advancement to the third module until he completed them. He contends the requirement forces incriminating disclosures, stalls his treatment and prolongs his confinement, and he invokes the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. These are allegations, not findings. Forster has not been adjudicated a sexually violent predator and is detained pending trial.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing Forster lacks standing because a pretrial detainee has no legally protected interest in sex offender treatment and any injury rests on speculative contingencies. They also moved under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing there is no Fifth Amendment claim because Forster has made no incriminating statement and none has been used against him, and no due process claim because the assessments serve a legitimate, non-punitive interest in preventing reoffending. A magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations on September 21, 2026. That document also granted Defendants' motion to strike Forster's notice of supplemental authority. Objections were due within 14 days.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge's reasoning, which the district court adopted, rejected both standing arguments. Forster has participated in the treatment program for years, so he plainly has an interest in continuing it and arguably holds a protected liberty interest. His alleged injury, stalled treatment progress, was found sufficient at the pleading stage. The injury was not speculative. Unlike the plaintiffs in Nelsen v. Kings County, who were former residents facing a long chain of contingencies, Forster remains detained, and if he loses at trial he would stay committed in a program that includes the assessments.
On the merits, the magistrate judge found the Fifth Amendment claim adequately pleaded. The assessments are alleged to be mandatory, refusal carries a significant penalty in the form of blocked advancement, and the questions allegedly reach uncharged conduct that could incriminate him in future criminal proceedings. On due process, the claim rests on the Fourteenth Amendment, not the state sexually violent predator statute, so Defendants' reliance on state-law limits on pretrial treatment did not defeat it. The magistrate judge could not conclude at this stage that the assessments are non-punitive or not excessive in relation to the interest in preventing reoffending.
Neither side objected. The district judge reviewed the matter de novo under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), found the recommendations supported by the record and proper analysis, adopted them in full, and denied the motion to dismiss (Doc. 12). The action was referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- The ruling is a denial of a motion to dismiss on the pleadings, so Forster's allegations are taken as true and nothing has been decided on the merits.
- A civil detainee who has participated in treatment for years can plausibly allege a legally protected interest and a concrete, non-speculative injury from stalled progress, even though he has not been adjudicated a sexually violent predator.
- The Fifth Amendment claim survived because mandatory assessments tied to treatment advancement were plausibly alleged to compel answers that could incriminate him in future prosecutions.
- The due process claim was treated as arising under the Fourteenth Amendment rather than state law, so state authorities limiting pretrial treatment did not require dismissal.
- Defendants' arguments that the assessments are legitimate, non-punitive monitoring tools remain available at later stages on a developed record.
Why It Matters
The order keeps a detainee's challenge to treatment-linked polygraph and plethysmograph requirements alive and shows that standing and pleading arguments grounded in a detainee's pretrial status will not necessarily end such a case at the outset. It follows other decisions in the same district cited by the magistrate judge that treated similar claims as constitutional rather than statutory.
The practical effect is limited. The order is an unpublished district court ruling with no precedential weight, it resolves only the pleading challenge, and it leaves open whether the assessments are in fact compulsory, incriminating or punitive. Those questions, and any relief, depend on further proceedings before the magistrate judge.