N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SAM M Y L. PAGE, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. AUDREY KING, R

e sponde nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-17352

D.C . No. 3:12-c v-03721-WHA M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia W illia m Alsup, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 16, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : C HR ISTEN and FRIEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s a n d LEM ELLE, ** Se nior Distric t Judge . Sam m y L. Pa ge (“ Pa ge ” ) a

ppe a ls the distric t

c ourt’ s de nia l of his m otion, file d pursua nt to Fe d. R . C iv. P. 60(b)(6), for re c o n side ration of thedistric t c ourt’ s orde r dism issing his 28 U.S.C . § 2241 ha b e a s c orpus pe tition. Pa ge ’ s § 2241



# FIL ED FEB 25 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Ivan L.R . Le m e lle , Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Ea s te rn Distric t of Louisia na , sitting by

de signa tion.pe tition c ha lle n g e d the ba sis for his pre -tria l de t e ntion while awa iting re solution of a 2006 pe tition, file d by

Ala m e da C ounty pursua nt to theC a lifornia

Se xua lly Viole nt Pre dat ors Ac t

(“ SVPA” ), to re c om

m it him a s a se xua lly viole nt pre dator. C a l. W e lf. & Inst. C ode § 6600 e t se q. W e va c ate the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of Pa ge ’ s R u le 60(b) m otion a

nd re m and to thedistric t c ourt so it c an re c onside r whe the r it ha d jurisdic tion ove r the m otion a nd Pa ge ’ s § 2241 pe tition. In Nove m be r 1997, a fte r Pa ge se rve d a full ja il se nte nc e for a

prior c onvic tion, C a lifornia p e titione d to c ivilly c om m it him unde r the SVPA. A y e ar late r, a fte r a

ppointm e nt of a

public de fe nde r and Pa ge ’ s pe rsona l wa ive r of the tim e for a p roba

b le c a use he aring, the supe rior c ourt he ld the he aring a nd de te rm ine d that the re wa s proba

ble c a use to hold Pa ge pe nding tria l. Five y e a rs la te r, in M ay 2004, thesupe rior c ourt he ld a tria l on thepe tition a

nd c o m m itte d Pa g e for a

twoy e ar te rm . B e fore the e n d of the two-y e ar te rm , C a l ifornia pe titione d

to re c o m m it Pa ge to a se c ond two-y e ar te rm . In M ay 2006, thesupe rior c ourt found proba ble c a use to de ta in Pa ge until tria l on there c o m m itm e nt pe tition. This de c a de -old proba b le c a use he a ring wa s the la st tim e a

judge re vie we d Pa ge ’ s c ivil c om m itm e nt. Afte r a

c ha n g e in sta te la w, C a lifornia

am e nde d its pe t ition to re que s t Pa ge ’ s inde finite c om m itm e nt. The supe rior c ourt ha s c ontinue d Pa ge ’ s

2re c o m

m itm e nt proc e e dings a

t le a st twe nty -e ight tim e s ove r the la st te n y e ars. The re c o rd be fore us doe s not disc lose the c a use s of this c onside ra

b le de la y . 1 In 2012, Pa ge file d this § 2241 petition in the Northe rn Distric t

of C a lifornia . In it, Pa ge a s se rte d tha t re c e nt de ve lopm e nts in thefie l d of psy c hiatry c a ll into que s tion thedia gnosis tha t se rve d a s the ba sis for his c om m itm e nt in 2004. Pa ge c onte nde d

tha t he ha d no opportunity

to pre se nt this newe v ide nc e in e ithe r his original c o m

m itm e nt proc e e ding or a

ny subse que nt proc e e ding. W he n Pa ge ’ s § 2241 pe tition wa s pre se nte d to thedistric t c ourt, a proba ble c a use he aring wa s sc he d

ule d in Pa ge ’ s re c om

m itm e nt proc e e ding, a

nd the distric t c ourt dism isse d the pe tition ba se d on Younge r v . Harris , 401 U.S. 37 (1971). This c ourt a ffirm e d tha

t dismissa l in Ja

nua ry 2013. In July

2013, Pa ge file d a

“ M o tion for R e lie f,” whic h the distric t c ourt ultimate l y c onstrue d a s a Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e d ure 60(b) m otion for re c onside ration of its e arlie r orde r dism issing Pa ge ’ s ha be a s pe tition. The

distric t c ourt de n ie d Pa ge ’ s R ule 60(b) m otion in a

roughly one -pa ge orde r, finding tha t it m e re ly

“ re ite rate [d] argum e nts [Pa ge ] m a de on

1 In pe nding m otions, Pa ge a s ks us to ta ke judic i a l notic e of va

rious doc um e nts, inc luding portions of the re c ord in his sta

te re c om m i tm e nt proc e e ding. W e grant Pa ge ’ s m o t ion a s to this sta te c o urt re c ord but de ny

the re m a inde r of Pa ge ’ s m otions a s m o ot. 3a

ppe a l tha t the an a ly sis unde rly ing thedism issa l of his [ha be a s] pe tition wa s e rrone ous.” Pa ge now a

rgue s on a

ppe a l of the de nia l of his “ M otion for R e lie f” that, pursua nt to this c ourt’ s de c ision in Gilbe rtson v . Albright , 381 F.3d 965, 973 (9th C ir. 2004) (e n ba

nc ), or, a lte rnative ly , pursua nt to theba d -fa ith e x c e ption to Younge r , se eGilbe r tson , 381 F.3d a t 983-84, theorigina l dismissa l unde r Younge r wa s im prope r. Pa ge a lso a

rgue s tha t the sta te c ourt proc e e dings we re not a c tua lly ongoing for purpose s of Younge r , b e c a use , at the tim e Pa ge file d his § 2241 pe tition, he

ha d be e n de ta i ne d pursua nt to there c om

m itm e nt pe tition for over six y e ars a wa iting trial. W

he n the distric t c ourt de c ide d both the pe tition a nd the subse q ue nt R ule 60(b) m otion, Pa ge awa ite d a re c e ntly -sc he dule d

ne w proba

ble c a use he aring on upda

te d psy c hiatric e va luations in his sta t e suit. B ut a fte r his § 2241 pe tition a

nd m o tion for re c onside rat ion we re de n ie d, the he aring wa s va c ate d. W e do not re s olve the m e rits of Pa ge ’ s a ppe a l be c a

use the re is a

m ore funda m e nta l que stion tha

t we nt una

nswe re d in thedistric t c ourt’ s orde rs: whe the r the d istric t c o urt ha d

jurisdic tion to issue

the m . As a

ge ne ra l rule , § 2241 pe titions

“ m ust be he ard in thec ustodia l c ourt.” He rnande z v . C ampbe ll , 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th C ir. 2000) (pe r c uriam ). B e c a use Pa ge is c onfine d

in Fre sno C ounty , his 4c ustodia l c ourt wa s the distric t c ourt e nc om pa ssing tha

t C ounty –the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia . 28 U.S.C . § 84. Pa ge file d his suit in the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , the distric t c ourt e nc om pa ssing Ala

m e d a C ounty , whe re the re c o m m itm e nt pe t ition is pending. Id. W e va c ate the distric t

c ourt’ s orde r de ny i ng Pa ge ’ s R ule 60(b) m otion a

nd re m and so tha

t the distric t c ourt c an c onside r whe the r it ha d jurisdic tion to de c ide the m otion a

n d Pa ge ’ s § 2241 pe tition. If the distric t c ourt de c ide s tha

t it la c ke d jurisdic tion, it should va

c ate its orde r de ny ing the § 2241 pe tition a nd tra nsfe r this m atte r to the Ea s te rn Distric t. V ACAT E D AND RE M ANDE D. Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its own c osts in this c a se .

5