Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02612/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02612-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pam Ahlin
Respondent
Jeffery W. Milinich
Petitioner

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFERY W. MILINICH,

Petitioner,

 vs.

PAM AHLIN, Executive Director,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 09-2612 CRB (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

After a jury in Santa Clara County Superior Court found petitioner to be a

sexually violent predator, he was involuntarily committed to the Department of

Mental Health for an indeterminate term pursuant to California's Sexually Violent

Predator Act, Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6600 et seq ("SVPA"), as amended in

2006 by Senate Bill 1128 and Proposition 83, an initiative measure. 

Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed to the California Court of Appeal and

the Supreme Court of California, which on April 1, 2009 denied review. The

instant pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

followed. 

Case 3:09-cv-02612-CRB Document 3 Filed 01/13/10 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 2

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for a 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). 

It 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." Id. § 2243. 

B. Claims

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief on the grounds that the

imposed indeterminate term of involuntary commitment violates various

provisions of the federal constitution. Liberally construed, the claims appear

cognizable under § 2254 and merit an answer from respondent. See Zichko v.

Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001) (federal courts must construe pro se

petitions for writs of habeas corpus liberally).

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The clerk shall serve a copy of this order and the petition and all

attachments thereto on respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney

General of the State of California. The clerk also shall serve a copy of this order

on petitioner. 

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within

60 days of the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule

5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of

habeas corpus should not be granted. Respondent shall file with the answer and

Case 3:09-cv-02612-CRB Document 3 Filed 01/13/10 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 3

serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that have been

transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues

presented by the petition. 

If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a

traverse with the court and serving it on respondent within 30 days of his receipt

of the answer.

3. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in

lieu of an answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion,

petitioner shall file with the court and serve on respondent an opposition or

statement of non-opposition within 30 days of receipt of the motion, and

respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a reply within 15 days

of receipt of any opposition.

4. 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 also keep the court and all parties informed of any

change of address. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Jan. 6, 2010 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\HC.09\Milinich, J1.osc.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-02612-CRB Document 3 Filed 01/13/10 Page 3 of 3