Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05352/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05352-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMMY L. PAGE,

Petitioner,

 v.

AUDREY KING, Executive Director

California Department of Mental

Health,

Respondent.

/

No. C 13-5352 WHA (PR) 

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT

TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF

AND SUBMIT EVIDENCE

(Docket Nos. 16, 20, 22)

On November 19, 2013, petitioner filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his civil commitment to a California mental health

institution pursuant to California's Sexually Violent Predators Act. See Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code

§ 6600, et seq. ("SVPA"). The petition set forth four claims, three of which were dismissed. A

later-filed habeas petition set forth an additional claim challenging the same commitment, and it

was consolidated into this matter. See Page v. King, No. C 14-2052 WHA (PR). 

Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss, petitioner filed an opposition, and respondent filed a

reply brief. Petitioner then filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental opposition, which is

GRANTED.

In his motion to dismiss, respondent argues that any challenge to the re-commitment

proceedings should be dismissed on abstention grounds because petitioner is awaiting trial on

the 2006 re-commitment petition. Under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), a federal court

should not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or

declaratory relief absent extraordinary circumstances. 401 U.S. at 53-54. Exceptions to this

rule exist where there is a showing of the state's bad faith or harassment, or a showing that the

Case 3:13-cv-05352-WHA Document 23 Filed 06/19/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

statute challenged is "flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions." 

Id. at 46, 53-54. Because of the lengthy pre-trial delay since the 2006 re-commitment petition,

upon which petitioner still has not been tried nine years later, such proceedings may no longer

be considered “ongoing” under Younger, or that exceptions to Younger for bad faith or

harassment could apply. The parties have not here explained the delay or indicated when or if a

trial on the re-commitment petition will take place. Without such information, the issue of

abstention cannot be decided. 

Within 28 days of the date this order is filed, respondent shall submit a supplemental

brief in support of his motion to dismiss explaining when and if the trial on the 2006 petition to

re-commit petitioner under the SVPA will take place, and explaining in detail the reasons for

the approximately nine-year delay in the civil commitment proceedings since the 2006 recommitment petition was filed. Respondent shall submit with the supplemental brief

declarations under oath from the prosecuting and defense attorneys explaining, for each and

every continuance in petitioner’s SVPA proceedings since the filing of the re-commitment

petition in 2006, who asked for the continuance and their reasons the continuance was sought,

and any other reasons provided by the state court that may or may not appear on the state court

record for granting the continuance. Respondent shall also submit with the motion all state

court records relevant to the delay, but the state court records will not suffice on their own; the

declarations described above must also be submitted. Copies of the declarations must also be

served upon petitioner.

Petitioner may file a supplemental opposition within 28 days of the date respondent’s

supplemental motion is filed. 

This clerk shall administratively close docket numbers 16, 20, 22.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June , 2015. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

19

Case 3:13-cv-05352-WHA Document 23 Filed 06/19/15 Page 2 of 2