T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J AC KI E R OB I NS ON , P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. S T E P H E N M A Y B E R G , e t a l., R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 56117 D. C. No . 3 : 0 9 - c v - 0 0 3 4 6 - I EG ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia I rm aE . G onz a l e z , C hi e f D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r27, 2011 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , W . F L E T C H E R , an dM U R G U IA , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J a c k ie R o b in s o n ap p e a ls f r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t d e n y in g h is 28 U . S . C . § 2254 habe a s pe t i t i on. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 2253, a n dw e a f

f i rm. R obi ns on w a s i nvol unt a r i l yc om m i tt e d t o the c us t odyof the D e partm e ntof M ent alH ea l th i n D ec em ber 200 6 u nd erC al i forni a’ s S exual l y V i ol entP re dat ors A ct(“ S V P A ”) , W el fare and Inst i tut i on s C od e § 66 00 etse q. H e c on t ends that 

# FI LED OC T 04 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 56117 2 appl i cat i on of the vers i on of the S V P A i n eff ec tatthe t i m e of hi s r etri al , rather tha n the ve r s i on i n e f

f e c ta tthe t i m e of

hi s f i r s ttr i a l , w hi c h r e s ul t e d i n a de a dl oc ke d j ury , vi ol a t e d hi s due pr oc e s s r i ght s . T he s t a t e c ourt ’ s de c i s i on d e n y in g th is c la im w a s n e ith e rc o n tr aryto n o rb a s e dup o n a n u n r e a s o n ab le appl i c a t i on of

c l e a r l ye s t abl i s he d f

e de r a l l aw , i nc l udi ng Kan sas v . H endri ck s , 521 U .S . 3 4 6 , 3 7 0 - 7 1 ( 1 9 9 7 ) . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) ; W i l l i am s v . T

ay lor , 5 2 9 U . S. 36 2, 40 9-10 (200 0). R obi ns on ne xtc ont e nds tha tthe S V P A vi ol a t e s due pr oc e s s bypr ovi di ng f or a n i nde t e rm i na t e t e rm of c om m i tm e nttha tR obi ns on c an t e rm i na t e onl ybypr ovi ng th at h e is n o lo n g era s ex u ally v io len t p re d ato r. G iv en th e S up re m e C o u rt’s re se rvat i on of the i ss ue of the const i tut i on aladequacy of proce du re s f or re l ea se that p la c e th e b u r d e n o f

p r o o f o n th e p e r s o n c h a lle n g in g a n in d e f in ite c o m m itm e n t, se e J on es v. U

ni ted States , 4 6 3 U .S . 3 5 4 , 3 6 2 , 3 6 3 n .1 1 (1 9 8 3 ), th e s tate co u rt’s r e je c tio n o f

th is c la im w a s n e ith e rc o n tr aryto , n o rb a s e dup o n a n u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f

, c le a r lye s tab lis h e df

e d e r a l law . See 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d)(1); Wi l l i a ms , 5 2 9 U .S . a t 4 0 9 - 1 0 ; A lberniv. McD an i el , 45 8 F . 3d 86 0, 86 5-66 (9th C i r. 20 06 ). R o b in s o n a ls o c o n te n d s th a t th e S V P A v io la te s h is e q u a l p r o te c tio n r ig h ts b e c au s e o th e rc iv il c o m m itm e n t s c h e m e s , s u c h a s th a t g o v e rn in g m e n ta lly d is o r d e r e do f

f e n d e r s , p r o v id e f

o rp e r io d ic ju d ic ia l r e v ie w o f ac o m m itm e n t in10- 56117 3 p ro ceed i n g s i n w h i ch th e st at e b ears th e b u rd en o f p ro o f. T h i s cl ai m fai l s b ecau se th e s ta te c o u ldr e a s o n ab lyh a v e c o n c lu d e dth a t th e u n iq u e d an g e rp o s e db ys e x u a lly v io le n t p r e d a to r s w a rr a n ts p la c in g th e b u r d e n o n th e m to e s tab lis h th e irs u itab ility f o rr e le a s e . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) ; Wi l l i a ms , 5 2 9 U .S . a t 4 0 9 - 1 0 ; H ub ba rt v. Knapp , 37 9 F . 3d 77 3, 78 1 (9th C i r. 20 04 ) ( S up re m e C ou rthas notaddres se d l evel of s c rut i nyappl i c abl e t o e qua l pr ot e c t i on c ha l l e nge s t o c i vi l c om m i tm e nt s c h e m e s ) ; H

e l le rv . D oe , 5 0 9 U. S . 3 1 2 , 3 2 0 - 2 1 ( 1 9 9 3 ) ( u n d e rr a t i o n a l b a s i s r e v i e w, c la s s if ic a tio n s m u s t b e up h e ld“if th e r e is a n yr e a s o n ab lyc o n c e iv ab le s ta te o f f a c ts tha tc oul d pr ovi de ar a t i ona l ba s i s f orthe c l a s s i f

i c a t i on” ) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons a nd ci t at i on om i tt ed). W e c o n s tru e R o b in s o n ’s a d d itio n a l ar g u m e n ts a s ar e n e w a l o f h is m o tio n to e x p a n dth e c e rtif

ic a te o f ap p e a lab ility . S o c o n s tru e d , th e m o tio n is d e n ie d . See 9 th C ir . R . 2 2 - 1 ( e ) ; s e e al

s o Hi i v ala v . W

ood , 195 F . 3d 1098, 1104- 05 ( 9th C i r . 1999) ( p e rc u r i a m) . Ro b i n s o n ’ s r e q u e s tf o rj u d i c i a l n o t i c e o f

th e Ca l i f

o rn i aSup r e me C ourt ’ s de c i s i on i n P eople v . McKee , 47 C al . 4th 1 17 2 (C al . 20 10 ) i s deni ed as u n n ecessary. AF F I RME D.