Rainwater v. King

• Decision Date: 06 December 2017
• Docket Number: No. 2:14-cv-02567-JKS,2:14-cv-02567-JKS
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
• Parties: JOHN ALLEN RAINWATER, Petitioner, v. AUDREY K. KING, Executive Director, Coalinga State Hospital, Respondent.

JOHN ALLEN RAINWATER, Petitioner, v. AUDREY K. KING, Executive Director,Coalinga State Hospital, Respondent.

No. 2:14-cv-02567-JKS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

December 6, 2017

MEMORANDUM DECISION

John Allen Rainwater, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus with this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.¹ Rainwater is in California state custody and involuntarily civilly committed to the Coalinga State Hospital as a sexually violent predator ("SVP"). Respondent has answered, and Rainwater has replied.

I. BACKGROUND/PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

On November 5, 2010, a jury found Rainwater to be a sexually violent predator under the Sexually Violent Predators Act ("SVPA"), CAL. WELF. & INST. CODE § 6600 et seq., and the court civilly committed him to the California Department of Mental Health ("DMH") for "appropriate treatment and confinement in a secure facility for an indeterminate term until such time that he is entitled to be released according to law."

On direct appeal, the California Court of Appeal summarized the following procedural history and evidence presented at Rainwater's civil commitment trial:

A. Juvenile and Criminal History

[Rainwater] began assaulting small boys, all of whom were strangers to him, when he was very young. In 1974, when [Rainwater] was 10, he lured a four-year-old boy to a secluded area and severely beat him in the head with a two-by-four. He pulled chucks of the boy's hair out, pulled his pants down and looked at the boy's buttocks. [Rainwater] was arrested, made a ward of the state, and placed in a mental facility. Several group home placements followed.

At 13, shortly after being released from a group home, [Rainwater] accosted a seven-year-old boy he saw playing near a ditch. He forced the boy's pants down and masturbated the boy and himself. That same year, [Rainwater] told another seven year old boy he encountered about magic rocks in some nearby bushes. After luring the child into the bushes, [Rainwater] forced the child to masturbate him and [Rainwater] masturbated the child. [Rainwater] admitted to orally copulating both boys. Based on these assaults, [Rainwater] was arrested for child molestation and later pleaded guilty to annoying a child. He was placed in several more group homes.

[Rainwater] was eventually released to his parents when he was 15. Like before, he sought out and molested more victims a short time later. He saw a seven-year-old boy walking home from swimming lessons. [Rainwater] was riding a bike and enticed the boy to get on the bike by telling him he would buy him a soda. [Rainwater] rode to a secluded area, slapped the child in the face and threatened him, pulled his pants down, put his mouth on the child's buttocks, and also forced the child to masturbate him. He also tried to sodomize the boy. Later that year, [Rainwater] was out trolling for another victim. He approached an 11-year-old boy walking home from school and forced the boy onto his moped. He drove the boy to a closed drive-in movie theater. After slapping the boy and forcing him to undress, he orally copulated and sodomized the child. [Rainwater] threatened to kill the boy if he told. For these offenses, [Rainwater] was charged with sodomy, child molestation, oral copulation, kidnapping, and assault andbattery. He pleaded to child molestation and was sentenced to six years in the California Youth Authority.

When he arrived at the Youth Authority, [Rainwater] volunteered for the WINTU program, which provides treatment in a therapeutic setting. While at WINTU, [Rainwater] wrote that he thought about killing himself, his parents, and a staff member and his little boy, had killed animals for no reason, and fantasized about watching little boys cry in pain as he molested them. [Rainwater] also wrote about plans to escape.

On November 23, 1981, when he was 17, [Rainwater] did escape with the intent to molest more victims. Within 24 hours, he accosted two young boys, aged 10 and 11. [Rainwater] encountered the friends coming home from school. He lured them to the railroad tracks under the guise of seeing a train wreck. [Rainwater] grabbed the boys and forced them to the ground. He removed their clothes and tied them together using their shoe laces. [Rainwater] forced the boys to orally copulate each other. He also forced one boy to orally copulate him and then he sodomized the boy. [Rainwater] fled on one of the boys' bikes and was later arrested.

[Rainwater] was prosecuted as an adult. In March 1982, [Rainwater] pleaded guilty to commission of forcible lewd and lascivious acts on a child under 14 years of age (PEN. CODE, § 288, subd. (b)), forcible oral copulation of a child under 14 years of age (PEN. CODE, § 288a, former subd. (c)), forcible sodomy (Pen.Code, § 286, former subd. (c)), and robbery (PEN. CODE, § 211). He was sentenced to 25 years in prison.

B. Prison and Parole

[Rainwater] served nearly 13 years of his sentence and sustained numerous disciplinary violations while incarcerated. He was paroled in December 1994. [Rainwater] violated parole several times and was returned to custody for months at a time. While out on parole in 1997, [Rainwater] saw a young boy on the street and fantasized about molesting him. The fantasies were so intense that [Rainwater] called his parole agent and asked to be incarcerated in the county jail until the fantasies dissipated. He was released after four days. A few days later, [Rainwater] violated curfew and a warrant was issued for his arrest. [Rainwater] was ultimately apprehended near the location where he orally copulated and sodomized his last victims. SVP proceedings were initiated against [Rainwater] while serving time for that parole violation.

C. SVPA Petitions

The Sacramento County District Attorney filed the initial petition alleging [Rainwater] was an SVP in 1997. Trial on the petition resulted in a hung jury. [Rainwater] waived his right to a subsequent jury trial and submitted the matter to the court for decision. In June 1998, the court found the petition true beyond a reasonable doubt and ordered [Rainwater] committed to Atascadero State Hospital for a two-year term. This court affirmed the judgment on appeal.

In May 2000, [Rainwater] stipulated that he remained an SVP. He agreed to extend his commitment until June 2, 2002.

In March 2002, the prosecutor filed a petition to extend [Rainwater's] commitment until June 2, 2004 (first extension petition). In July the court found probable cause to hold [Rainwater] over for trial. Trial on the first extension petition was set for October 2002. This trial date was subsequently continued several times, both at the request of [Rainwater's] counsel and the prosecutor. Trial was ultimately reset for April 5, 2004.

In February 2004, the prosecutor filed another petition to extend [Rainwater's] commitment until June 2, 2006 (second extension petition). With both parties' consent, the April trial date on the first extension petition was vacated so the court could conduct a probable cause hearing on the second extension petition prior to trial. Initially set for April 2004, the probable cause hearing commenced in May and was continued to July 2004. The court found probable cause to believe [Rainwater] continued to meet the SVP criteria and trial was set in November 2004. The parties requested several continuances and trial was reset for March 28, 2006.

Four days before trial, on March 24, the prosecutor filed another petition to extend [Rainwater's] commitment until June 2, 2008 (third extension petition). Trial on the previous extension petitions was vacated to conduct a probable cause hearing on the third extension petition. The probable cause hearing commenced in April, was continued to May, and later concluded in June 2006. The court found probable cause that [Rainwater] met the criteria for recommitment as an SVP and continued the matter to August 2006 for further proceedings. The matter was continued over the next two months, either at [Rainwater's] request or with his counsel's agreement, and trial was eventually set for March 6, 2007.

We note that the Legislature amended the SVPA in September 2006 to lengthen the term of an SVP commitment from two years to an indeterminate term; a voter initiative that passed in November 2006 made similar changes. (Senate Bill 1128, Stats. 2006, ch. 337, § 55 (eff. Sept. 20, 2006) [amending WELF. & INST. CODE, § 6004]; Prop. 83, §§ 27, 28 (eff. Nov. 8, 2006).)

Because [Rainwater's] counsel was in trial on another matter, [Rainwater's] trial was continued to the end of the month. The matter was again continued to April 11, 2007, apparently because [Rainwater's] counsel was preparing a writ petition to this court challenging whether recent amendments to the SVPA deprived the court of jurisdiction over pending recommitment petitions like [Rainwater's]. The writ petition challenging the jurisdictional issue was later filed in Bourquez v. Superior Court (2007) 156 Cal. App. 4th 1275, review denied February 27, 2008, (Bourquez) [Rainwater] was not a named party in the writ petition.

In light of the writ filing, the trial court stayed numerous SVP recommitment cases, including [Rainwater's] matter. The prosecutor subsequently filed an amended petition to extend [Rainwater's] commitment indefinitely under the amended law.

The trial court continued to stay [Rainwater's] case pending the Third District's ruling on the writ petition in Bourquez. This court denied the writ in November 2007. (Bourquez v. Superior Court, supra, 156 Cal. App. 4th 1275.)

Following denial of the writ in Bourquez, [Rainwater's] matter was continued several more times until January 2009. [Rainwater] was present during these hearingsand did not object to his counsel's requested continuances. The case was continued twice more to April 10, 2009, after which the court continued the matter on several occasions until August 2009 to address a motion

...