(HC)Jackson v. Ahlin, No. 1:2012cv01163 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER Re-Designating the Action as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 and Directing the Clerk to Notify the Parties; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss Petitioner's State Law Claims Without Leave to Amend; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS to Refer the Petition Back to the Magistrate Judge to order a response to Petition, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 11/14/12. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections Deadline: Thirty Days. (Gonzalez, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC)Jackson v. Ahlin Doc. 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 VASHON TYRONE JACKSON, 11 12 13 14 15 16 ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) PAM AHLIN, Executive Director ) of the Coalinga State ) Hospital, ) ) Respondent. ) ) ) 17 18 19 1:12-cv—01163-AWI-SKO-HC ORDER RE-DESIGNATING THE ACTION AS A PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (DOC. 1) AND DIRECTING THE CLERK TO NOTIFY THE PARTIES FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS PETITIONER’S STATE LAW CLAIMS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND (DOC. 1) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO REFER THE PETITION BACK TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO ORDER A RESPONSE TO THE PETITION OBJECTIONS DEADLINE: THIRTY (30) DAYS 20 21 Petitioner is a person involuntarily committed to state 22 custody pursuant to California’s Sexually Violent Predator’s Act 23 (SVPA) who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a 24 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 25 The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 26 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 304. 27 before the Court is the petition, which was filed on July 12, 28 2012. Pending 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 I. 2 Review of the pleading filed by Petitioner reflects that Re-designating Petitioner’s Action 3 Petitioner is challenging the legality or duration of his 4 confinement. 5 initially designated as a civil detainee’s civil rights 6 complaint, should be re-designated as a petition for writ of 7 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 8 9 Accordingly, the action, which upon intake was The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to change the designation of the present case to reflect that of a habeas corpus action by 10 adding a suffix of “HC” to the case number and to send a notice 11 of the new case number to all parties in this action. 12 Further, the parties are DIRECTED to use the re-designated 13 case number, to which the “HC” suffix has been substituted, in 14 all the pleadings and documents filed in this action. 15 II. 16 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United Screening the Petition 17 States District Courts (Habeas Rules) requires the Court to make 18 a preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. 19 The Court must summarily dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly 20 appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 21 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court....” 22 Habeas Rule 4; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 23 1990); see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 24 1990). 25 grounds of relief available to the Petitioner; 2) state the facts 26 supporting each ground; and 3) state the relief requested. 27 Notice pleading is not sufficient; the petition must state facts 28 that point to a real possibility of constitutional error. Habeas Rule 2(c) requires that a petition 1) specify all 2 Rule 1 4, Advisory Committee Notes, 1976 Adoption; O’Bremski v. Maass, 2 915 F.2d at 420 (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 3 n.7 (1977)). 4 conclusory, or palpably incredible are subject to summary 5 dismissal. 6 Allegations in a petition that are vague, Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d at 491. The Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus 7 either on its own motion under Habeas Rule 4, pursuant to the 8 respondent's motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the 9 petition has been filed. Advisory Committee Notes to Habeas Rule 10 8, 1976 Adoption; see, Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042-43 11 (9th Cir. 2001). 12 dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears that no 13 tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted. 14 Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971). A petition for habeas corpus should not be 15 Here, in the petition,1 which including exhibits is 263 16 pages in length, Petitioner appears to be challenging actions or 17 orders of the Superior Court of the State of California, County 18 of Sacramento in proceedings against Petitioner undertaken 19 pursuant to California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA). 20 Petitioner filed his lower state court habeas petitions in the 21 Sacramento County Superior Court and the Court of Appeal of the 22 State of California, Third Appellate District. 23 petition was filed in the Sacramento division of this Court. 24 Nevertheless, the petition was transferred to this division of 25 this Court on July 17, 2012. Further, his 26 27 28 1 W ith the exception of the first page and a few pages at the end of the last volume of exhibits, the docketed version of the petition and exhibits does not bear page numbers at the top of the filed document. Page references will be to those appearing at the top of the petition form; it will not be possible to give page references for the remainder of the petition, which consists of exhibits. 3 1 Petitioner alleges he is an inmate of the Coalinga State 2 Hospital who was convicted of two counts of rape and is serving a 3 two-year commitment pursuant to the SVPA. 4 he is also currently awaiting trial, and may be facing another, 5 separate round of commitment proceedings. 6 He also alleges that Petitioner names the executive director of the Coalinga 7 State Hospital, where he is confined, as the Respondent. 8 alleges that he has presented his claims to all the state courts. 9 (Pet. at 3-6.) Petitioner refers to He amendments to the 10 commitment statutes that were passed in 2006 that provide for an 11 indeterminate commitment instead of commitments with a fixed 12 duration. 13 erroneously for over sixteen years. 14 Petitioner further argues that he has been held Petitioner raises the following claims in the petition and 15 the supporting memorandum of points and authorities: 1) The SVPA 16 evaluators used an underground rule and regulation to commit 17 Petitioner because they failed to follow California’s 18 Administrative Procedure Act, Cal. Govt. Code §§ 11349 et seq., 19 when formulating the evaluators’ manual and standardized 20 assessment protocols (pet. 7); 2) the SVPA evaluators used a 21 fictitious mental disorder, “Paraphilia NOS,” as Petitioner’s 22 diagnosis (id. at 8); 3) “Current Civil Commitment is Coexist on 23 Fraud, Deceit and a Misrepresentation of the Diagnosis of 24 Paraphilia-NOS” because Petitioner’s convictions were the sole 25 factual basis for the diagnosis (id. at 9); 4) rape is not a 26 mentally diagnosable disorder, and thus Petitioner’s commitment 27 is false imprisonment without a legitimate diagnosis (id. at 11); 28 and 5) based on the foregoing facts, Petitioner’s commitment 4 1 violates Petitioner’s right to due process of law guaranteed by 2 the Fourteenth Amendment because in committing Petitioner, the 3 government engaged in arbitrary action, and the nature and 4 duration of the commitment do not bear a reasonable relation to 5 the purpose of the commitment (unpaginated). 6 III. 7 Because the petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the State Law Claims 8 effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty 9 Act of 1996 (AEDPA), the AEDPA applies to the petition. Lindh v. 10 Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 (1997); Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 11 1484, 1499 (9th Cir. 1997). 12 A district court may entertain a petition for a writ of 13 habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of 14 a state court only on the ground that the custody is in violation 15 of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 16 U.S.C. §§ 2254(a), 2241(c)(3); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 17 375 n.7 (2000); Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. –, -, 131 S.Ct. 13, 18 16 (2010) (per curiam). 28 19 Federal habeas relief is not available to retry a state 20 issue that does not rise to the level of a federal constitutional 21 violation. 22 McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). 23 application of state law are not cognizable in federal habeas 24 corpus. 25 a habeas proceeding, this Court is bound by the California 26 Supreme Court’s interpretation of California law unless it is 27 determined that the interpretation is untenable or a veiled 28 attempt to avoid review of federal questions. Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. at 16; Estelle v. Thus, alleged errors in the Souch v. Schaivo, 289 F.3d 616, 623 (9th Cir. 2002). 5 Murtishaw v. In 1 Woodford, 255 F.3d 926, 964 (9th Cir. 2001). 2 Here, many of Petitioner’s claims are based solely on state 3 law. 4 violation of California’s Administrative Procedure Act presents 5 exclusively a state law question, namely, whether or not the 6 evaluators misinterpreted or misapplied state law. 7 third claim may be somewhat uncertain, but it appears to be that 8 use of Petitioner’s rape convictions as the sole factual basis 9 for a diagnosis of Paraphilia-NOS produced an erroneous diagnosis Petitioner’s first claim that the SVPA used a regulation in Petitioner’s 10 that was misrepresented as true. 11 fourth claims are thus understood as allegations that SVPA 12 evaluators made a fictitious and thus mistaken diagnosis, and 13 that rape is not a mentally diagnosable disorder. 14 allegations amount to claims that the evaluators erroneously 15 interpreted or applied the state law protocols. 16 Petitioner’s second through These In short, Petitioner’s first through fourth claims amount to 17 state law claims that are not cognizable in this proceeding 18 because this Court is bound by the California courts’ 19 interpretation and application of California law. 20 indication in the record that any interpretation of state law 21 involved in this proceeding is untenable or a veiled attempt to 22 avoid review of federal questions. 23 recommended that Petitioner’s first through fourth claims be 24 dismissed. 25 There is no Accordingly, it will be Because the defect in these claims is based not on a dearth 26 of factual allegations, but rather on the nature of the claims as 27 arising solely from state law, Petitioner could not allege 28 tenable claims even if leave to amend were granted. 6 Accordingly, 1 it will be recommended that these claims be dismissed without 2 leave to amend. 3 appears to be cognizable in this proceeding, it will be 4 recommended that the matter be referred back to the Magistrate 5 Judge to order a response to the remaining claim in the petition. Additionally, because Petitioner’s fifth claim 6 IV. 7 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that: 8 1) 9 10 11 Recommendations Petitioner’s first through fourth claims be DISMISSED without leave to amend as state law claims not cognizable in a proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; and 2) The matter be referred back to the Magistrate Judge to 12 direct the filing of a response to the remaining claim in the 13 petition. 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the 15 United States District Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant 16 to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of 17 the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, 18 Eastern District of California. 19 being served with a copy, any party may file written objections 20 with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. 21 should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 22 and Recommendations.” 23 and filed within fourteen (14) days (plus three (3) days if 24 served by mail) after service of the objections. 25 then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 26 § 636 (b)(1)(C). 27 objections within the specified time may waive the right to 28 appeal the District Court’s order. Within thirty (30) days after Such a document Replies to the objections shall be served The Court will The parties are advised that failure to file 7 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 2 3 4 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: ie14hj November 14, 2012 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
