Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00541/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00541-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Jackson Kitchens
Petitioner
Thomas Voss
Respondent

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM JACKSON KITCHENS,

Petitioner,

v.

THOMAS VOSS,

Respondent.

 /

1: 06 CV 00541 WMW HC

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RE

RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 10]

Petitioner is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have consented to

the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. Pending before the court is Respondent’s

motion to dismiss.

BACKGROUND

On September 30, 2002, the District Attorney of Fresno County, California, filed a petition to

declare Petitioner a sexually violent predator (“SVP”) pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions

Code section 6600 et seq. 

On November 7, 2002, the Fresno County Superior Court found probable cause to believe

that Petitioner is likely to engage in sexually violent predatory criminal behavior upon his release

Case 1:06-cv-00541-WMW Document 23 Filed 01/22/08 Page 1 of 3
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

from custody. The court ordered that Petitioner remain in custody pending trial on the petition.

Petitioner proceeded to file numerous petitions for writs of habeas corpus in the Fresno

County Superior Court and in the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, in which he challenged

the legality of the SVP commitment proceedings against him. Petitioner then petitioned the

California Supreme Court for review of the Court of Appeal’s denial of his last petition. That

petition was also denied.

On May 5, 2006, Petitioner filed the present petition challenging the legality of the SVP

commitment proceedings against him in state court. 

DISCUSSION

Respondent moves to dismiss this petition on the ground that principles of comity and

federalism require that this court abstain from ruling on the petition until the state proceedings are

completed. Petitioner opposes the motion.

Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with ongoing

state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief except under special

circumstances. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). Younger abstention is required when:

(1) state proceedings, judicial in nature, are pending; (2) the state proceedings involve important

state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional

issue. Middlesex County Ethics Comm. V. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982);

Dubinka v. Judges of the Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9 Cir. 1994). The rationale of Younger th

applies throughout the appellate proceedings, requiring that state appellate review of a state court

judgment be exhausted before federal court intervention is permitted. Dubinka, 23 F.3d at 223 (even

if criminal trials were completed at time of abstention decision, state court proceedings still

considered pending). 

In this case, it is undisputed that after numerous continuances over the last four and one half

years, Petitioner is still detained in custody awaiting trial on the petition to declare him a SVP. The

court finds that it is clear that state proceedings, judicial in nature, are pending against Petitioner, and

that these proceedings involve important state interests. Further, the court finds that these state

proceedings afford Petitioner an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional issues. As Respondent

Case 1:06-cv-00541-WMW Document 23 Filed 01/22/08 Page 2 of 3
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

argues, Petitioner can raise any constitutional issues which may arise from any ultimate commitment

order through either appeal or a state habeas petition. Finally, the court rejects Petitioner’s

contention that Younger abstention is not appropriate because he seeks to challenge the initial

administrative finding as to his past sexual crimes. Nothing precludes Petitioner from raising this

issue in a challenge to any ultimate commitment order which may be entered. Petitioner’s desire to

challenge this finding before the trial on the petition does not alter this court’s duty to abstain

Younger from interfering with ongoing state judicial proceedings. Accordingly, the court finds that it

is required to abstain from further consideration of this case. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1) Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED;

2) this petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner’s right

to file an appropriate habeas corpus petition following completion of his state court

proceedings;

3) Petitioner’s motion for judgment filed July 3, 2007 [Doc. 16], is DENIED as moot;

4) Petitioner’s motion for judgment filed December 19, 2007 [Doc. 19], is DENIED as moot;

5) Petitioner’s motion for a more definite statement filed January 14, 2008 [Doc. 21], is

DENIED as moot;

6) the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00541-WMW Document 23 Filed 01/22/08 Page 3 of 3