Nothnagel v. Allenby

Filing 12

ORDER GRANTING 7 MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/26/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/26/2012)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 6 No. C 11-03753 CW (PR) PREN NOTHNAGEL, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS Petitioner, v. (Docket nos. 7, 10) 7 CLIFF ALLENBY, Acting Director, California Department of Mental Health, 8 Respondent. / 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Petitioner is involuntarily committed to Coalinga State 11 Hospital as a sexually violent predator (SVP). 12 petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 13 § 2254, he alleges his continued indeterminate confinement as an 14 SVP is unlawful because of federal constitutional violations at his 15 commitment proceeding. 16 abstention grounds. 17 Court to rule on the merits of the petition. 18 discussed below, the motion to dismiss is granted and Petitioner’s 19 request to rule on the merits of the petition is denied. Respondent moves to dismiss the petition on Petitioner opposes the motion and asks the 20 21 In the present For the reasons BACKGROUND On March 11, 2009, a Humboldt County jury found true a 22 petition alleging that Petitioner is a SVP under the Sexually 23 Violent Predators Act (SVPA), California Welfare and Institutions 24 Code section 6600 et seq. 25 committed to the custody of the California Department of Mental 26 Health for an indeterminate term. 27 28 The superior court ordered Petitioner Resp’t Ex. A. On direct appeal, Petitioner raised the claim, among others, that the indeterminate term violates his federal constitutional 1 right to equal protection. 2 3065250, *1 (Cal. App. First Dist.). 3 See People v. Nothnagel, 2010 WL On August 6, 2010, the California Court of Appeal, relying on 4 the California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. McKee, 47 Cal. 5 4th 1172 (2010), denied Petitioner’s other claims, but reversed the 6 judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for 7 reconsideration of the equal protection claim. 8 3065250 at *1-2. 9 Nothnagel, 2010 WL On October 20, 2010, the California Supreme Court denied United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Petitioner’s petition for review, without citation or comment. 11 Resp’t Ex. B. 12 Petitioner then sought state habeas corpus relief from the 13 California Supreme Court on numerous grounds, but did not raise the 14 equal protection claim. 15 petition summarily on July 20, 2011, with citations to People v. 16 Duvall, 9 Cal. 4th 464, 474 (1995), In re Waltreus, 62 Cal. 2d 218, 17 225 (1965), and In re Lindley, 29 Cal. 2d 709, 723 (1947). 18 Ex. 1. 19 Pet. Ex. 2. The court denied the Pet. Petitioner filed the present petition on July 29, 2011. 20 DISCUSSION 21 Petitioner raises twenty-seven claims for relief, all of which 22 were presented to the California Supreme Court in his state habeas 23 petition. 24 rights, he seeks release or a new civil commitment trial. 25 Respondent moves to dismiss the petition on abstention grounds, 26 based on the California Court of Appeal’s remand of Petitioner’s 27 case to the trial court for reconsideration under People v. McKee. 28 // Claiming the violation of his federal constitutional 2 1 A. 2 The McKee Opinion In McKee, the California Supreme Court addressed federal constitutional due process, ex post facto, double jeopardy and 4 equal protection challenges to Proposition 83, which modified the 5 terms under which SVPs can be released from civil commitment under 6 the SVPA. 7 two-year term -- renewable only if the State proved to a jury 8 beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual still met the 9 definition of an SVP -- to an indefinite commitment from which the 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 3 individual can be released only if he proves by a preponderance of 11 the evidence that he no longer is an SVP. 12 1183. 13 Proposition 83 changed the length of commitment from a McKee, 47 Cal. 4th at The court in McKee found that the petitioner’s due process, 14 ex post facto and double jeopardy challenges to Proposition 83 were 15 without merit. 16 protection challenge, however, the court concluded that “the 17 government has not yet shown that the special treatment of SVP’s is 18 validly based on the degree of danger reasonably perceived as to 19 that group, nor whether it arises from any medical or scientific 20 evidence.” 21 to the trial court for “the government [to] have an opportunity to 22 justify Proposition 83’s indefinite commitment provisions, at least 23 as applied to McKee, and demonstrate that they are based on a 24 reasonable perception of the unique dangers that SVP’s pose rather 25 than a special stigma that SVP’s may bear in the eyes of 26 California’s electorate.” 27 28 Id. at 1188-1196. Id. at 1210. With respect to the equal Accordingly, the court remanded the case Id. In the present case, the Court of Appeal, relying on McKee, similarly found Petitioner’s due process, ex post facto and double 3 1 jeopardy challenges to his continued confinement under Proposition 2 83 to be meritless. 3 as follows: 4 The Supreme Court recently issued dispositional orders in those cases pending review in light of McKee. The Court directed that “[i]n order to avoid an unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings,” the courts are to suspend further proceedings pending finality of the proceedings in McKee. We shall, therefore direct the trial court to suspend proceedings in the matter pending the finality of McKee. * * * The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court for reconsideration of defendant’s equal protection claim in light of McKee. The trial court is also directed to suspend further proceedings pending finality of the proceedings in McKee, including any proceeding in the Superior Court of San Diego County in which McKee may be consolidated with related matters. “Finality of the proceedings” shall include the finality of any subsequent appeal and any proceedings in the California Supreme Court. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California The court ruled on his equal protection claim 11 12 13 14 Nothnagel, 2010 WL 3065250 at *1-2. 15 B. 16 17 18 19 20 21 Motion to Dismiss Respondent moves to dismiss the petition on abstention grounds, under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Petitioner opposes, arguing that he is not raising an equal protection claim in the present petition, and, consequently, he should not have to wait until the California courts rule on that claim before he can raise in federal court the other exhausted challenges to his civil 22 commitment. 23 Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court 24 25 should not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent extraordinary 26 circumstances. 27 non-criminal proceedings when important state interests are 28 involved. Id. at 43-54. The rationale of Younger applies to See Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar 4 1 Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982); SJSVCCPAC v. City of San Jose, 546 2 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2008). 3 when (1) state proceedings, judicial in nature, are pending; 4 (2) the state proceedings involve important state interests; and 5 (3) the state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to raise the 6 constitutional issue. 7 requirement has been articulated by the Ninth Circuit: that “the 8 federal court action would enjoin the state proceeding or have the 9 practical effect of doing so, i.e., would interfere with the state Younger abstention is required Middlesex, 457 U.S. at 432. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 proceeding in a way that Younger disapproves.” 11 A fourth at 1092 (citing cases). 12 SJSVCCPAC, 546 F.3d The rationale of Younger applies throughout appellate 13 proceedings, requiring that state appellate review of a state court 14 judgment be exhausted before federal court intervention is 15 permitted. 16 (1975). 17 corpus relief must await the outcome of his state court appeal 18 before doing so; that appeal may result in reversal of the 19 petitioner’s conviction on some other ground, thereby mooting the 20 claims raised in his federal habeas petition. 21 Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). 22 See Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 607-11 Moreover, a petitioner who intends to seek federal habeas See Sherwood v. Based on the procedural posture of the present petition -- 23 Petitioner has filed a fully-exhausted petition that does not 24 include an equal protection claim -- the Court finds Respondent’s 25 abstention argument persuasive. 26 court has been charged with reconsidering Petitioner’s challenge to 27 the constitutionality of his civil commitment once McKee is 28 decided; the state proceedings in McKee, and application of the Specifically, the state trial 5 1 outcome to Petitioner’s case, involve the important state interest 2 of regulating the detention of SVPs; and those proceedings, as well 3 as California’s habeas process, afford an opportunity for 4 Petitioner to raise his constitutional challenge. 5 adjudicating the present petition would interfere with the Court of 6 Appeal’s directive to the trial court to reconsider Petitioner’s 7 equal protection challenge. 8 the trial court’s reconsideration of the equal protection challenge 9 could result in the reversal of the outcome of Petitioner’s civil Further, Abstention is also appropriate because United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 commitment proceeding, thus mooting the necessity for federal 11 habeas review. 12 Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the petition on abstention 13 grounds is GRANTED, and Petitioner’s request that the Court rule on 14 the merits of the petition is DENIED. 15 dismissal of the petition does not prevent Petitioner from filing, 16 after completion of his state court proceedings and if the state 17 court fails to provide him adequate relief, a new federal habeas 18 corpus petition containing all of his federal constitutional 19 claims. 20 CONCLUSION 21 22 Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition is GRANTED. The petition is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. 23 24 As noted by Respondent, The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the file. 25 This Order terminates Docket nos. 7 and 10. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 Dated: 6/26/2012 28 CLAUDIA WILKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?