Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03642/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03642-4/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)

---

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

1

The petition is properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), which provides habeas

corpus jurisdiction over any person held in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or

treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

 v.

PAM AHLIN, Executive Director,

Coalinga State Hospital,

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

No. C 09-3642 MMC (PR)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

(Docket No. 10)

On July 22, 2009, petitioner, a civil detainee confined at Coalinga State Hospital and

awaiting civil commitment proceedings, filed the above-titled pro se petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1

 By order filed November 13, 2009, the Court

reviewed the petition and found it presents a challenge to the validity of ongoing state court

proceedings to determine whether petitioner will be sentenced to a term of confinement under

California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act (“SVPA”). See Cal. Welfare & Inst. Code §§

6600, et seq. Applying the abstention principles discussed in Middlesex County Ethics

Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982), the Court dismissed the

petition without prejudice under the doctrine of Younger abstention. See Younger v. Harris,

401 U.S. 37, 43-46 (1971). (Order, filed Nov. 13, 2009, at 2:20-3:21).

Petitioner has now filed a notice of appeal, which the Court construes as including a

Case 3:09-cv-03642-MMC Document 11 Filed 01/15/10 Page 1 of 3
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

2

request for a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 22(b). See United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). 

In the notice of appeal petitioner argues that the Court should not have dismissed the petition

on abstention grounds because his SVPA commitment proceedings have been pending for

nine years. Specifically, petitioner argues, the Court must rule on his petition in accordance

with Ninth Circuit case law holding that extreme delay in the state review process may

justify federal habeas review before all state court review of a case is completed. See

Phillips v. Vasquez, 56 F.3d 1030, 1037-38 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding prisoner’s interest in

reasonably prompt review of conviction outweighed jurisprudential concerns of exhaustion

and abstention where murder conviction had been final for ten years but death sentence still

under appellate review in state court); see also Coe v. Thurman, 922 F.2d 528, 530 (9th Cir.

1990) (holding extraordinary delay in state courts can render state corrective processes

ineffective within meaning of § 2254(b) and excuse exhaustion). 

The Court finds the delays addressed by the Ninth Circuit in Phillips and Coe

distinguishable from the facts of the instant matter. In particular, in those cases the Ninth

Circuit was concerned with the due process ramifications of delayed state court appellate

review of a final judgment of conviction. In the instant case, however, there has been no

final state court judgment with respect to the matter of petitioner’s custody because his

SVPA commitment proceedings are ongoing. Under such circumstances, the Ninth Circuit

has held that, absent a showing of an ineffective state process or other extraordinary

circumstances, the principles of comity underlying the Supreme Court’s decision in Younger

require a federal court to abstain from intervening in ongoing state proceedings. See

Edelbacher v. Calderon, 160 F.3d 582, 584-87 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding Younger abstention

required where petitioner involved in ongoing state criminal proceedings, delay had source in

legitimate and proper procedures sought in part by petitioner, and anticipated length of

criminal proceedings not “open-ended”). Here, petitioner has not shown either that the state

process is ineffective or that other extraordinary circumstances exist that would warrant

federal intervention. Specifically, as noted in the Court’s order of dismissal, petitioner

alleges in his petition that the SVPA proceedings have been continued several times on

Case 3:09-cv-03642-MMC Document 11 Filed 01/15/10 Page 2 of 3
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

2

Petitioner has not filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and the

Court makes no determination as to whether such status should be granted.

3

petitioner’s motion, including petitioner’s successful motion for a new probable cause

hearing, and that he has been able to receive prompt appellate review of state habeas petitions

challenging certain aspects of the SVPA proceedings. In particular, the ready availability of

the state corrective process under such circumstances further supports an inference that,

should petitioner seek review from the state appellate courts with respect to his claim that the

SVPA proceedings have been unlawfully delayed, such claim would be ruled upon in a

timely manner. 

Based on the above, the Court concludes the petition was properly dismissed on

abstention grounds and petitioner has not shown “that jurists of reason would find it

debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and

that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its

procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Accordingly, the request

for a certificate of appealability is hereby DENIED.2

The Clerk shall forward this order, along with the case file, to the United States Court

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, from which petitioner may also seek a certificate of

appealability. See Asrar, 116 F.3d at 1270.

This order terminates Docket No. 10. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 15, 2010 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-03642-MMC Document 11 Filed 01/15/10 Page 3 of 3