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)
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?