Walker v. Brown

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge James Donato on 11/17/15. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
ROGER LEE WALKER,

7

Case No. 15-cv-03148-JD

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

9
JERRY BROWN,

10

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Petitioner, a civil detainee, filed a habeas action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He is

14

currently awaiting trial to be civilly committed pursuant to California’s Sexually Violent Predators

15

Act (SVPA). See Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 6600, et seq. Petitioner filed a form petition that sought

16

to stop the California Department of State Hospitals from using certain standards, procedures, and

17

assessment tools in determining if a person is a Sexually Violent Predator. He also sought to stop

18

his commitment trial and to be released from inpatient treatment. Plaintiff is currently being held

19

in Coalinga, CA which is located in the Eastern District of California. He stated the underlying

20

commitment proceeding arose from Alameda County, which is in this district. Petitioner was

21

ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed due to Younger abstention.1 He has

22

not filed a response or otherwise communicated with the Court.
A federal court generally will not enjoin or directly intercede in ongoing state court

23
24

proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances. Younger, 401 U.S. at 40-41, 43-45. Federal

25

courts will abstain if the state proceeding 1) is currently pending, 2) involves an important state

26

interest, and 3) affords the petitioner an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional claims.

27
28

1

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).

1

Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass’n., 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). For

2

abstention to be appropriate, the federal court action must enjoin the state proceeding or have the

3

practical effect of doing so by interfering in a way that Younger disapproves. Gilbertson v.

4

Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 977-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc). This principle of abstention has been

5

applied to collateral attacks on criminal convictions; federal habeas corpus does not lie, absent

6

special circumstances, to adjudicate the merits of a state criminal charge prior to a judgment of

7

conviction by a state court, Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 489

8

(1973), or even during the time a case is on appeal in the state courts, New Orleans Pub. Serv.,

9

Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 369 (1989). This principle has also been
applied to pending state civil proceedings where important state interests are at stake. Middlesex

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

County Ethics Committee, 457 U.S. at 432; Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 423 (1979) (pending

12

child custody proceeding); Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 604 (1975) (pending nuisance

13

action).

14

SVPA proceedings involve important state interests. The importance of a state’s interest

15

may be shown by a close relationship between noncriminal proceedings to proceedings that are

16

criminal in nature. Middlesex County Ethics Comm., 457 U.S. at 432. The SVPA proceedings are

17

closely related to proceedings that are criminal in nature and involve state interests of protection of

18

the public and mental health treatment, which under California law are considered to be

19

compelling, Hubbart v. Superior Court, 19 Cal. 4th 1138, 1153 n. 20 (1999), and are the types of

20

interests categorized as legitimate and important under federal authority, Dept. of Revenue of Ky.

21

v. Davis, 553 U.S. 328, 340 (2008) (health, safety and welfare of citizens); Hill v. Colorado, 530

22

U.S. 703, 715 (2000) (traditional police power of the state to protect the health and safety of

23

citizens).

24

Specifically, the Younger abstention principles have been applied to SVPA proceedings.

25

See, Smith v. Plummer, 458 Fed. Appx. 642, 643 (9th Cir. Nov. 15, 2011) (unpublished); Cruz v.

26

Ahlin, 2011 WL 5290092, at *3 (C.D.Cal. Aug. 24, 2011) (unpublished) (collecting cases).

27
28

The case is DISMISSED in light of the case law cited above. To the extent petitioner
challenges the conditions of his confinement, he must file an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
2

1

in the Eastern District of California where he is currently confined.2 To the extent he wishes to

2

challenge the lawfulness of his commitment he must file a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to

3

28 U.S.C. § 2254 after he has been committed and exhausted his claims in state court. All

4

pending motions are denied as moot and the Clerk shall close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: November 17, 2015

7
________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2

28

Petitioner has already filed a case challenging his treatment. See Walker v. Allenby, Case No.
15-cv-0198-LJO-MJS (E.D. Cal.)
3

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

ROGER LEE WALKER,

Case No. 15-cv-03148-JD

Plaintiff,
5
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6
7

JERRY BROWN,
Defendant.

8
9
10

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

That on November 17, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by
placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

16
17
18

Roger Lee Walker ID: CO-001619-6
Coalinga State Hospital
P.O. Box 5003
Coalinga, CA 93210-5003

19
20
21

Dated: November 17, 2015

22
23

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

24
25
26
27

By:________________________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO

28
4