Page v. King, No. 17-16364 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment dismissing a habeas corpus petition in which petitioner, who has been detained for thirteen years awaiting trial for recommitment under the California Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), alleged that the State of California was violating his due process rights by continuing to detain him pretrial based on an outdated and scientifically invalid probable cause finding.
The panel rejected petitioner's contention, that his SVPA case has been stalled for so long that it was no longer "ongoing" for purposes of Younger abstention, as foreclosed by precedent. The panel also held that the delay in bringing petitioner's case to trial was not an extraordinary circumstance under Younger. Furthermore, petitioner's claim fits squarely within the "irreparable harm" exception to Younger abstention in Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2018). Therefore, the district court erred in abstaining under Younger from hearing petitioner's claim that the state was violating his pretrial due process rights. Accordingly, the panel remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus / Younger Abstention. The panel vacated the district court’s judgment dismissing based on Younger abstention a habeas corpus petition in which Sammy Page, who has been detained for thirteen years awaiting trial for recommitment under the California Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), alleges that the State of California is violating his due process rights by continuing to detain him pretrial based on an outdated and scientifically invalid probable cause finding. The panel rejected as irreconcilable with this court’s precedents Page’s contention that his SVPA case has been stalled for so long that it is no longer “ongoing” for purposes of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). The panel explained that the state court proceeding is “plainly ongoing” for Younger purposes where, as here, no final judgment has been entered. The panel held that the delay in bringing Page’s SVPA case to trial is not an extraordinary circumstance under Younger, as the delay is primarily attributable to defense counsel’s litigation efforts, not the state court’s ineffectiveness. The panel held that Page’s claim fits squarely within the “irreparable harm” exception to Younger abstention set forth in Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2018),
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.