F OR P UB LIC AT ION 

### U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT

B OB B Y J OE K

NI GHT , Petitioner-Appellant ,
v. P AM A H LIN , Ex ecutive Direc tor, Respondent-

Appellee

. No. 10-56211

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00039- CA S- RZ

OPI NI ON
Appea l from the United States District Court fo r t he Ce ntr a l D istri c t of

Ca lif or nia Christina A. Sny der, D istrict J udg e, Presiding

Argued and Submitted F e br ua ry 14 , 2 01 3 —Pa sa de na , Ca lif or nia Filed Ma rch 13, 2013 Be fore : Alfred T . Goodwin, Andre w J . Kleinfe ld, and B arr y G. Silv e rm an, Cir c uit

Judg e s. Per Curiam OpinionK NI GH T V
. A H LIN 2

T hi s s ummary cons t i t ut es n o part of t he op i ni on of

t he cour t

. I t ha s * b een p repa red b y co urt s t af f f o r t he co nveni ence o f

t he read er. SUMMAR

Y *

Hab e as Co r pus The pa nel re versed t h e district court’s de nial of a 28 U.S.C . § 22 41 ha

be a s c or pu s p e tit ion

by a Ca lif or nia state pr iso ne r c ha lle ng inghis de tent ion pe nd inga

c ivi l commitment p ro ce ed i n g un d er th e S ex u al l y

Vi o l en tP re d at ors Ac t ( SVP A) . K

night w a s c onvic te d o f r a

pe and se nte nc e d to 20 y ear s. Be fore his expected release in 2004, the state filed a SVPA petition and the superior court order ed that petitioner Knig ht re main in custody while awa iting trial. Af ter c ha lle ng inghis de te nti on in s tate c ourt , K

night f il ed h is federal pe tition, which the district court denied unde r the Y ounger a bs te nti on do c tr ine . T he pa

ne l he ld t hat Y ounger does not apply

beca use the proc eeding s are not “ong oing.” The p an e l r e ma

n d e d w it hin s tr u c ti o n s th at t

h e d is tric t c o urt g ra nt a c on dit ion a l wri t r e qu ir ingthat K night b e tr ie d w ith in 90 day s or re lease d and the SVPA petition dismi ssed.

CO UN SEL Matth e w B

. L ar s e n , D e p uty F e d e r a l Pu b li c D e f e n d e r , L os An g e le s, Ca lif

or nia , f or Pe tit ion e r- Ap pe lla

nt. Patrick D. Moran and Shirley S. N. Sun, Deputy Di s t rict Attorney s, L o s An g e le s , Cali f o r n ia , f o r Re spondent-Appe llee.K NI GH T V
. A H LIN 3

Ac c or di n g t o t h e SVPA, t h e s t a t e ma y c i v i l l y de t a i n a pri or s ex 1 o ff e n d e r a n d ind e finitely c o m m it h im to s ta te h o sp itals, if a t tria l t h e sta te p ro v e s “b e yo n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t” tha t he is l ike ly t o “e n g a g e in se x u a lly v io le n t cr im ina l b e h a v io r” d u e to a m e n ta l d iso rd e r. See C AL
. W E LF
. & I N ST
. C O D E § § 6 6 0 2 , 6 6 0 4 ; 6 6 0 0 (a)( 1 ). T he SV P A outl i nes t he p ro c e ss o f co m m itm e n t b y c ivil p e tit io n , i d. § 66 01 , and p ro vi des t hat soo n af t er t he st at e f

i l es a pet i t i o n, t he Sup eri o r C o urt shal l hold a heari ng and de t erm i ne “ whether t here is p rob ab l e cause” t o be l i eve t he res p o nd ent

“ i s l i kel y t o eng age i n” s exu al l y vi ol entcr i mi nal behav i or af t er hi s r el eas e. I d. § 6 6 0 2 . If so , t h e c o u rt “sh a ll o rd e r” the re sp o n d e n t re m a n d e d to sta te c u sto d y p e n d ing trial. I d. OP IN ION PER CU RIAM : B ob by Joe Kn ight i s a

c onvic te d r a

pis t who se rv e d tw e nty y ear s in California state prison. Kni g ht’s confine ment pursuant to his prison sentenc e was expected to end in 2004, but just b ef

o re h is relea se, the state f iled a civil petition ag ainst him unde r California’s Sex ually Violent Predator A ct (“SVPA”) , C AL
. W ELF
. & I N ST
. C ODE §§ 6600 et seq . 1 Knig ht waived his right to a probable cause hearing, a nd the L os An g e le s Co unty

Sup e ri or Court or de re d h im to re ma in i n custody “in a secur e fac ility ” while awa iting trial. Id. § 6602. The state’ s petition has nev er be en tried. B etwee n 2004 and 2009, Knig ht’s counsel re peate dly reque sted or stipulated to numerous continuanc es, while Kn ight pe rsonally made repe ated r equests for

new c ounsel. For

its p ar t , the g ov e rnme nt e ith e r a c qu ie sc e d o r a g re e d to the c ontin ua nc e s. No e ff or t w a s ma de to p us h th e c a se to t ri a l. In April 2009, Knig ht filed a pr o se habeas c orpus pe tit ion in t he Sup e ri or Court , c la imi ngthat hi s e xce e din g lyK NI GH T V
. A H LIN 4 leng thy detention violated his constitutional rig hts. Howeve r, the c o urtd e n i e d

th e p e t i t i o nan d

th e C a l i f

o r n i a a p p e l l a te courts agree d. Meanwh i l e, Kni g ht remaine d in custody and the SVPA petition made n o p rogre ss. Knight’ s counsel and the g overnme nt agree d to fu rt her c ontinuances a nd came no closer to a

trial on the merits. On Dec ember

22, 2009, Knig ht turned to the fe dera l courts for relief and initiated another pro se habeas petition. The district cour

t concluded t hat the doctr ine of Y ounger abstention applied a

nd dismiss ed Knight’s case . Wed isa g ree . I. Y O U N G ER A B S T E NT I ON The Y ounger a bs te nti on do c tr ine pr ov ide s th at in c e rt a in limit ed cir cumstance s, fede ral courts may ref use to hea

r plaintiffs’ constitutional challeng es to underly ing a nd ong oing state cr iminal or civil procee dings. See Yo unger v. Ha rri s , 4 01 U. S. 3 7 ( 19 71 ); Middlesex C n ty. Ethics Comm. v
. G a rd e n S ta teB a r A ss’n , 4 5 7 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). Abstention is approp ri ate only in “ca ref ully define d” cir cu m stance s, and “r emains an e x traordina ry and nar row exception to the ge nera l rule” t hat fe dera l courts must not decline to e x erc ise their jurisdiction. Ne w Or leans Pub. Serv., I nc. v. Counc il o

f th e City of New Orleans , 4 91 U. S. 35 0, 35 9 ( 19 89 ); Potrero Hills Landf ill, Inc. v. Cnty. of Solano , 657 F.3d 876, 882 ( 9th Cir. 2011)

. The Y ounger abstention doctrine g ener ally provides that when: (1) the under lying “ hearings at issue const itute an o n go i n g s t at e j u d i c i al p ro ce ed i n g”; (2 ) “ th e p ro ce ed i n gs implicate important st ate inter ests”; (3) “ there [i s] an adequate opportunity

in the state proc eeding s” for the fe dera l plai n ti f f “ to r a is e c o n s ti tuti o n a l c h a ll e n g e s ” ; an d ( 4 ) theK NI GH T V
. A H LIN 5 fede ral action would “e njoin” the state proc eeding s “or have the pr a c tic a l e ff

e c t of do ingso ,” fe de ra l court s shou ld a bs ta in

. Gilbertson v . Albright , 381 F.3d 965, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (e n ba nc ); Po tre ro , 657 F.3d at 8 82 (interna l quotation marks omitted). II. A P P L I CAT I ON We reviewthe dis t rict cour t’s application of Y

ounger abstention de novo , G ilb e r ts on , 381 F.3d at 982 n.19, and reve rse. Y ounger abstention fundame ntally require s an ongo i ng state proc eeding

. See Gi l b er t s on , 381 F.3d at 973. But Knig ht’s SVPA petit i on proce eding s were not “ong oing,” e xce pt i n n ame on ly , whe n he fi led his fe de ra l habeas petition. See id. at 969 n.4 (“c ritical date” fo r d ec i ding whether Y

ounger abstention applies is “the date the fe dera l a c tio n is fi le d” ); Kitchens v. Bowen , 8 25 F .2 d 1 33 7, 13 41 (9 th Cir. 1987). Moreove r, t h e st ate c ourt has postponed consideration of the ca se pendinga d ec i s ion in the fede ral court. B eca

use the proc eeding s are not “ong oing,” Y ounger abstention does not apply

. See W alnut Props., Inc. v. City of W hittier , 861 F.2d 1102, 1107 ( 9th Cir. 198 8 ). In W alnut Properties, Inc

. , we he ldthat wher e the state court proce eding s had bee n stayed “pe nding r esol ution of the fe d er al p ro ce ed i n gs , ” t h er e “ we re n o tru l y ‘o n g o i n g’ proce eding s which would justif y abstention.” Id. We h e ld that Y ounger “conc erns a

re not pre sent wher e a state court ha s sta y e d it s o wn

pr oc e e din g s p e nd ingre so lut ion of the c a se in a fe dera l forum.” Id.K NI GH T V
. A H LIN 6 III . C ONCL US I ON The district cour

t’s abstention and denial of the wr it were inappropriate. At oral argument, the state’s c ounsel indicated that a trial on the c ommitm ent petition could be complete d within 90 day s, and that the state w ould not oppose an orde r g rantingan alter

native wr it of habeas corpus

. We the ref

ore reve rse, rema

nd, and instruct the di s t ri ct court to grant a

conditional writ of habeas corpus . T he wr it sh all require that Knig ht be tried within 90 day s or be re le a se d a

nd the SVP A p e tit ion di sm isse d. Th e writ s ha ll a lso e mph a siz e that no fu rt he r c ontin

ua nc e s o f t he SVP A petition proce eding s should be g rante d except for c ompelling and extraordinar

y cause . RE VE RSE D A ND RE M AN DE D wit h ins tr uc ti ons .