Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-02823/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-02823-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order to Re-Open; Order Directing Respondent to File a Motion that it Expressly Waives the Exhaustion Requirement 

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\HC.12\Felix823oscexh.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT E. FELIX, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

DR. S. MAYBERG,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 10-2823 LHK (PR)

ORDER TO RE-OPEN; ORDER

DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO

FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS OR

NOTICE THAT IT EXPRESSLY

WAIVES THE EXHAUSTION

REQUIREMENT

Petitioner, a civilly committed person proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. The Court directs the Clerk to

RE-OPEN this matter. The Court orders Respondent to file a motion to dismiss or a notice that it

expressly waives the exhaustion requirement.

BACKGROUND

In 1982, Petitioner was convicted of three counts of false imprisonment, two counts of

oral copulation, one count of rape, and one count of assault with the intent to commit rape. (Pet.,

Ex. 5 at 1.) Petitioner was released on parole before 1993. (Id. at 2.) Petitioner had his parole

subsequently revoked several times, and while he was in custody for a March 1996 parole

revocation, the State filed a petition to commit Petitioner as a sexually violent predator (“SVP”),

under California’s Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 6600, et seq. (Id.) Petitioner was found to

be an SVP, and committed to a two-year term. (Id.) Eventually, that commitment extended

Case 5:10-cv-02823-LHK Document 22 Filed 01/02/13 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order to Re-Open; Order Directing Respondent to File a Motion that it Expressly Waives the Exhaustion Requirement 

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\HC.12\Felix823oscexh.wpd 2

through July 22, 2002. (Id.)

In 2002, the State filed a petition to extend Petitioner’s commitment to 2004. (Id.) No

trial commenced before the July 22, 2004 deadline was approaching, so the State filed a second

petition to extend Petitioner’s commitment to July 22, 2006. (Id.) These two petitions were

consolidated. Again, no trial commenced before the July 22, 2006 deadline was approaching, so

the State filed a third petition to extent Petitioner’s commitment to July 22, 2008. (Id.) 

Ultimately, the consolidated petitions were scheduled to go to trial on October 6, 2006. (Id. at

3.) On October 20, 2006, a jury found that Petitioner was an SVP as defined by statute, and the

trial court committed Petitioner to an indeterminate term. (Id. at 4.) 

Petitioner appealed to the California Court of Appeal, which affirmed the judgment on

December 16, 2008. The California Supreme Court denied review on March 25, 2009. 

Petitioner filed the underlying petition on June 28, 2010. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court only on the ground that he is in custody in

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose

v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). 

A district court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show

cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the

applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 

B. Petitioner’s Claims

Petitioner raises the following claims: (1) the trial court was without jurisdiction to

extend Petitioner’s commitment period beyond September 2006; (2) the State is judicially

estopped from proceeding on commitment petitions against Petitioner because of a consent

judgment; (3) there was insufficient evidence to prove that Petitioner was an SVP because there

was no showing that he committed “a recent overt act”; (4) the petition should have been

dismissed because it violated Welfare & Institutions Code section 6601 because one of the

Case 5:10-cv-02823-LHK Document 22 Filed 01/02/13 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order to Re-Open; Order Directing Respondent to File a Motion that it Expressly Waives the Exhaustion Requirement 

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\HC.12\Felix823oscexh.wpd 3

evaluating psychologists was not an “independent professional”; (5) the retroactive application

of the new indeterminate terms of the amended statute violated Petitioner’s right to due process;

and (6) Petitioner’s 2006 petition should not have been dismissed.

Claims 4 and 6 fail to state a federal constitutional claim for relief, and therefore, will be

DISMISSED with prejudice. Liberally construing the remaining claims, the Court concludes

that Claims 1-3, and 5 are cognizable for federal habeas review. 

C. Exhaustion Requirement

However, it appears that Petitioner has not exhausted all of his cognizable claims. See

Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 1998) (recognizing that the Court may raise

exhaustion issues sua sponte). Prisoners in state custody who wish to collaterally challenge

either the fact or length of their confinement in federal habeas corpus proceedings are first

required to exhaust state judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral

proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the

merits of each and every claim they seek to raise in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c). 

Accordingly, the Court directs Respondent to file a motion to dismiss, or notify the Court that it

expressly waives the exhaustion requirement. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3). 

CONCLUSION

1. The Clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order and the petition (docket no. 1)

and all attachments thereto upon the Respondent and the Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney

General of the State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on Petitioner. 

2. Accordingly, within sixty (60) days of the filing date of this order, the Court

directs Respondent to file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, or notify the Court that it

expressly waives the exhaustion requirement. If Respondent files a motion to dismiss, Petitioner

shall file a response within twenty-eight (28) days of Respondent’s motion. Respondent shall

file a reply within fourteen (14) days thereafter. 

3. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner is reminded that

all communications with the Court must be served on Respondent by mailing a true copy of the

document to Respondent’s counsel. Petitioner must keep the court and all parties informed of

Case 5:10-cv-02823-LHK Document 22 Filed 01/02/13 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order to Re-Open; Order Directing Respondent to File a Motion that it Expressly Waives the Exhaustion Requirement 

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\HC.12\Felix823oscexh.wpd 4

any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of Change of Address.” He

must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the

dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: LUCY H. KOH 

United States District Judge

Case 5:10-cv-02823-LHK Document 22 Filed 01/02/13 Page 4 of 4