Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02700/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02700-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Berl Bates
Petitioner
Stephen Mayberg
Respondent
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT BERL BATES, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

STEPHEN MAYBERG, Director,

California Department of Mental Health,

and THOMAS VOSS, Director, Coalinga

State Hospital, , 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-2700 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner, a pre-trial civil detainee at Coalinga State Hospital currently pending a

hearing under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (“SVPA”), filed a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the State Department of Mental

Health’s (“DMH”) failure to comply with the California Administrative Procedures Act

in implementing a new “standardized assessment protocol” as required by the SVPA. 

Petitioner has paid the filing fee. The Court concludes that Petitioner’s claim is not

cognizable under § 2254 and will dismiss the petition. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A district 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

Case 3:07-cv-02700-JSW Document 6 Filed 10/17/07 Page 1 of 6
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

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. Summary

dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory,

palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d

490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)). 

B. Petitioner’s Claim

As grounds for habeas relief, Petitioner alleges that under the SVPA, California

Welfare and Institutions Code § 6601(c), the DMH is required to evaluate persons

screened by the Department of Corrections and Board of Prison Terms and determined

“likely to be a sexually violent predator[,]” in “accordance with a standardized

assessment protocal, developed and updated by the State Department of Mental Health, to

determine whether the person is a sexually violent predator as defined in this article.” Ca.

Wel. & Inst. § 6601(c). Petitioner alleges that because the DMH has implemented an

entirely new mental health evaluation protocol, but has failed to promulgate the protocol

as required under the California Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), Ca. Gov. Code

§ 11342 et seq., the use of the protocol violates Petitioner’s due process rights under the

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

States may enact statutes that provide for the "forcible civil detainment of people

who are unable to control their behavior and who thereby pose a danger to the public

health and safety." Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 357 (1997). The constitutionality

of state civil commitment proceedings may be challenged in federal habeas corpus once

state remedies have been exhausted. See Nelson v. Sandritter, 351 F.2d 284, 285 (9th Cir.

1965). Commitment to a mental hospital produces a massive curtailment of liberty and

consequently requires due process protection. See Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 491-92

(1980). This is true even where the respondent is already a prisoner in custody of the

Case 3:07-cv-02700-JSW Document 6 Filed 10/17/07 Page 2 of 6
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

3

state or federal government. See id. at 493-94. 

In Vitek, the Court identified the following as minimum safeguards to which due

process entitled a respondent in a commitment proceeding: written notice; a hearing at

which the evidence being relied upon for the commitment is disclosed; an opportunity at

the hearing for the respondent to be heard in person and to present documentary evidence;

an opportunity at the hearing for the respondent to be heard in person, to present

testimony and documentary evidence, and to cross-examine witnesses called by the state;

an independent decision-maker; a reasoned, written decision; the availability of an

independent advisor, not necessarily an attorney; and effective and timely notice of all

these rights. See id. at 494-96; Carty v. Nelson, 426 F.3d 1064, 1074 (9th Cir.), amended,

431 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2005). 

More recently, the Court noted that involuntary commitment statutes have been

upheld when “(1) the confinement takes place pursuant to proper procedures and

evidentiary standards, (2) there is a finding of dangerousness either to one’s self or to

others, and (3) proof of dangerousness is coupled with the proof of some additional

factor, such as a mental illness or mental abnormality.” Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407,

409-10 (2002) (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted). The legal definitions of

"mental illness" or "mental abnormality" used in a civil commitment statute need not

mirror those advanced by the medical profession. See id.; Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S.

346, 359 (1997). 

In this case, Petitioner does not argue that the civil commitment proceedings held

under the SVPA fail to meet the constitutional standards set out in Vitek and Crane. 

Instead, Petitioner argues that the failure of the DMH to properly promulgate under the

APA the standardized assessment protocol used to evaluate persons under the SVPA

violates his due process rights. However, violations of state law generally do not

implicate federal due process concerns. It is only when a state statute creates a protected

“liberty interest” that the violation of state law raises federal constitutional concerns on

federal habeas corpus. See Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 841 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Bonin

Case 3:07-cv-02700-JSW Document 6 Filed 10/17/07 Page 3 of 6
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

4

I”). 

A state law creates a “liberty interest” protected by the Due Process Clause if the

law: (1) contains “substantive predicates” governing official decision making; (2)

contains “explicitly mandatory language” specifying the outcome that must be reached if

the substantive predicates are met; and (3) protects “some substantive end.” See id. at

842. The state law must provide more than merely procedure. See id.; Dix v. County of

Shasta, 963 F.2d 1296, 1299 (9th Cir. 1992).).

Several Ninth Circuit panels also have required that the state law violation result in

the deprivation of a substantive right protected by the Constitution. See, e.g., Bonin v.

Calderon, 77 F.3d 1155, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1996) ("Bonin II") (even assuming violation of

state law in setting execution date, no federal habeas claim because there is no

deprivation of federal substantive right); Bonin I, 59 F.3d at 842 (California statute which

gives defendant in capital case right to have two defense attorneys argue in his behalf

does not create protected liberty interest cognizable in habeas because it contains neither

“substantive predicates” nor “explicitly mandatory language,” and there is no federal

constitutional right to have two attorneys make closing arguments); Moran v. Godinez, 57

F.3d 690, 698 (9th Cir. 1995) (although post-conviction court violated Nevada law when

it placed burden of proving competency on defendant, violation of state law did not result

in deprivation of substantive right because state provided defendant with constitutionally

adequate procedures to evaluate his competency, even with burden of proof on him). 

In this case, it is clear that the promulgation of the standardized assessment

protocol under the APA is a procedural right and the SVPA assessment statute does not

create the type of “substantive predicates” governing official decision making nor

“explicitly mandatory language” required to raise a due process claim based on the

alleged state law violation. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed because

Petitioner’s claim is not cognizable under § 2254. 

CONCLUSION

The instant petition is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim under 

Case 3:07-cv-02700-JSW Document 6 Filed 10/17/07 Page 4 of 6
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

5

§ 2254. The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions, enter judgment and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 17, 2007 JEFFREY S. WHITE 

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02700-JSW Document 6 Filed 10/17/07 Page 5 of 6
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

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT BERL BATES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STEPHEN W. MAYBERG et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-02700 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on October 17, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office

delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Robert Berl Bates

Coalinga State Hospital

P.O. Box 5003, Unit 6

CO. 000186-7

Coalinga, CA 93210

Dated: October 17, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:07-cv-02700-JSW Document 6 Filed 10/17/07 Page 6 of 6