U.S. ex rel. Stachulak v. Coughlin

• Decision Date: 06 August 1975
• Docket Number: No. 74-1155,74-1155
• Citation: 520 F.2d 931
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Frank STACHULAK, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Joseph COUGHLIN et al., Respondent-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Page 931

520 F.2d 931

UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Frank STACHULAK, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Joseph COUGHLIN et al., Respondent-Appellant.

No. 74-1155.

United States Court of Appeals,

Seventh Circuit.

Argued Jan. 6, 1975.

Decided Aug. 6, 1975.

William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Jayne Carr, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, Ill., for respondent-appellant.

Robert H. Smith, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner-appellee.

Before FAIRCHILD, Chief Judge, and STEVENS and SPRECHER, Circuit Judges.

FAIRCHILD, Chief Judge.

Petitioner Frank Stachulak was committed to the custody of the Illinois Director of Corrections pursuant to the Illinois Sexually Dangerous Persons Act, Ill.Ann.Stat., ch. 38, § 105-1.01 (Smith-Hurd 1970) et seq., and confined at the Psychiatric Division of the Illinois State Penitentiary at Menard in 1969. Four years later he brought this action under the federal habeas corpus statutes, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq., and Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging both the lawfulness of his detention and the conditions of his confinement. The district court granted habeas corpus relief, Stachulak v. Coughlin, 369 F.Supp. 628 (N.D.Ill.1973), and respondents, Illinois correctional officials, appeal. We affirm.

I

Under the Illinois Sexually Dangerous Persons Act, the state may seek an involuntary indeterminate institutional commitment in lieu of a criminal prosecution if a person is charged with a criminal offense and believed to be sexually dangerous. Ill.Ann.Stat., ch. 38, § 105-3. By the Act's terms, Id. § 105-1.01,

All persons suffering from a mental disorder, which mental disorder has existed for a period of not less than one year, immediately prior to the filing of the petition hereinafter provided for, coupled with criminal propensities to the commission of sex offenses, and who have demonstrated propensities toward acts of sexual assault or acts of sexual molestation of children, are hereby declared sexually dangerous persons.

Upon receipt of a petition alleging sexual dangerousness, a state circuit court appoints two psychiatrists to examine the person so charged. Id. § 105-4. The defendant is entitled to counsel and may demand a jury trial. Id. § 105-5. If, after a hearing, he is found to be sexually dangerous, he is committed to the custody of the Director of Corrections for care and treatment. Id. § 105-8. Once committed, a defendant can only secure his release by proving to the committing court that he is no longer sexually dangerous. Id. § 105-9.

The Act is silent as to what burden the state must meet to establish that a defendant is sexually dangerous. In accordance with the statute's designation that proceedings under the Act are "civil in nature," Id. § 105-3.01, the state trial judge instructed the jury that they could find Stachulak to be a sexually dangerous person if the state had proved its case by a preponderance of the evidence. Relying primarily on In Re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970), the district court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the state's case for commitment must be proven by the more stringent beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard applied in criminal actions. The court then ordered Stachulak enlarged unless within 60 days the state sought a renewed commitment order in proceedings in conformity to this holding.

Respondents contend on appeal that the reasonable doubt burden of proof is not constitutionally mandated for proceedings under the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act.

II

Although neither of the parties questioned our appellate jurisdiction, it is incumbent upon us to address this issue, for it concerns our power to hear the case. See Carson v. Allied News Co., 511 F.2d 22, 23 (7th Cir. 1975).

The habeas corpus statutes follow the general rule that only final orders are subject to appellate review. 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Stachulak's complaint sought relief simultaneously under the habeas statutes, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq., and the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court granted the habeas relief but reserved ruling on the section 1983 claim pending further proceedings. The state appealed from the habeas order, but did not request and receive from the district judge an express determination, pursuant to Rule 54(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., ¹ that there was "no just reason for delay" and that final judgment should be entered. In the ordinary civil action involving multiple claims such a determination would be required for finality and appellate jurisdiction.

Through Rule 81(a)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P., the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are applicable to habeas corpus proceedings "to the extent that such practice in such proceedings is not set forth in statutes of the United States and has heretofore conformed to the practice in civil actions." ² The draftsmen of the rule plainly did not intend that ipso jure all the civil rules were operative in habeas actions. "Such specific evidence as there is with respect to the intent of the draftsmen of the rules indicates nothing more than a general and nonspecific understanding that the rules would have very limited application to habeas corpus proceedings." Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 295, 89 S.Ct. 1082, 1088, 22 L.Ed.2d 281 (1969). Thus, our court has not applied the rules of civil procedure as a matter of course in habeas corpus cases. See Bijeol v. Benson, 513 F.2d 965 (7th Cir. 1975) (Rule 23 inapplicable).

The Supreme Court in Harris v. Nelson, supra, suggested that the central considerations in determining the reach of Rule 81(a)(2) are the intended scope of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the history of habeas corpus proceedings. There, the Court read Rule 81(a)(2) to exclude application of Rule 33 in habeas corpus actions because the discovery rules "are ill-suited to the special problems and character of such proceedings." 394 U.S. at 296, 89 S.Ct. at 1089. Although an amendment to Rule 81(a)(2) had changed the language, the Court apparently deemed that there was no change of substance. 394 U.S. at 293, footnote 3, 89 S.Ct. 1082.

A similar analysis compels a like result in this case. The essence of habeas corpus is that it provides "a prompt and efficacious remedy for whatever society deems to be intolerable restraints." Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 401-02, 83 S.Ct. 822, 829, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963). See also Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 495-96, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973) and 28 U.S.C. § 2243. To delay an appeal from an order granting or denying such relief pending disposition of another claim, such as the civil rights claim here, conflicts with the emphasis on prompt decision. Since application of Rule 54(b) would necessarily result in delay in any case where the district court refused to enter a 54(b) order, the draftsmen of the civil rules must not have contemplated the rule's application in habeas corpus proceedings like the present one, where claims for non-habeas relief were joined and accepted along with claims for habeas relief.

We have also noted that an Illinois appellate court, relying on the decision of the district court in this case, recently held that the standard of proof for commitment under the Illinois Sexually Dangerous Persons Act is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than preponderance of the evidence. People v. Pembrock, 23 Ill.App.3d 991, 320 N.E.2d 470 (1974), leave to appeal granted. This decision does not directly affect petitioner Stachulak nor moot his case, although it adopts the rule he seeks. The decision has not yet become final, and does not appear to be a construction of state law, but appears to rest on federal constitutional grounds. It does not foreclose or excuse us from independently examining the federal question presented.

III

We have no doubt that the principles of due process in general must govern proceedings brought under the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act. Individuals who are committed pursuant to its terms most surely suffer a " grievous loss." Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972). The crux of this case is determining what process is due. ³ Recognizing that proceedings under the Act closely resemble criminal prosecutions, the Illinois courts have accorded some of the safeguards applicable in a criminal trial to individuals charged with sexual dangerousness. People v. Studdard, 51 Ill.2d, 190, 195-97, 281 N.E.2d 678, 681 (1972). For example, in addition to statutory rights to a hearing, jury trial, and counsel, Ill.Ann.Stat., ch. 38, § 105-5, a defendant is entitled to the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, People v. Nastasio, 19 Ill.2d 524, 529-30, 168 N.E.2d 728, 731 (1960), the right against self-incrimination, People v. English, 31 Ill.2d 301, 307, 201 N.E.2d 455, 459 (1964) and the right to speedy trial, People v. Beshears, 65 Ill.App.2d 446, 459, 213 N.E.2d 55, 62 (1965).

Respondents, citing Specht v. Patterson, 386 U.S. 605, 87 S.Ct. 1209, 18 L.Ed.2d 326 (1967), contend that these rights and procedures are all that due process requires. In Specht the Court held that an individual could not be sentenced under the Colorado Sex Offenders Act, a statute similar in purpose to the one before us, unless he was accorded the fundamental protections of due process. Among these safeguards only the rights to be present with counsel, to be heard and offer evidence, and to confront and cross-examine witnesses were mentioned; no reference was made to the requisite burden of proof. 386 U.S. at 610, 87 S.Ct. 1209. However, the burden of proof question was not presented in Specht, and it was not until several years later that the constitutional stature of the reasonable doubt standard was explicitly affirmed. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). In consequence, Specht's failure to mention the reasonable-doubt standard as a due process requirement is not dispositive.

We agree with the district...