Russ v. Price

• Decision Date: 13 December 2022
• Docket Number: 1:21-cv-01592-HBK (HC)
• Parties: ROY RUSS, Petitioner, v. BRANDON PRICE, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

ROY RUSS, Petitioner,
v.
BRANDON PRICE, Respondent.

No. 1:21-cv-01592-HBK (HC)

United States District Court, E.D. California

December 13, 2022

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS ^[1] (DOC. NO. 7)

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner Roy Russ (“Petitioner”), a civil detainee at Coalinga State Hospital, initiated this action by filing a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1, “Petition”). Petitioner challenges his continued commitment stemming from the state court's denial of his October 30, 2020 state habeas petition for post-commitment relief. (Id. at 6). The Petition raises three grounds for relief (restated): (1) Petitioner's continued commitment based solely on his diagnosis of Anti-Social Personality Disorder (“ASPD”) with a finding that the diagnosis does not predispose him to engage in commission of sexual offenses violates his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) Petitioner's continued commitment absent a diagnosed

1

mental disorder within the terms of the SVPA violates his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights; and (3) his continued commitment violates the Equal Protection Clause. (Doc. No. 1 at 19-30). Respondent, the Executive Director, Department of State Hospitals-Coalinga, filed a Motion to Dismiss in response. (Doc. No. 7). Respondent argues the claims are not cognizable for federal habeas relief and otherwise are meritless. (Id. at 2). Respondent attaches the state court record in support of the Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 7 at 13-1142).^[2] Petitioner filed a reply. (Doc. No. 11). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and denies Petitioner relief on his Petition.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Petitioner's Initial Commitment and Challenge

On April 8, 1988, Petitioner pled guilty to committing a lewd and lascivious act on a child under the age of fourteen in violation of California Penal Code § 288(a). See People v. Russ, No. F056349, 2009 WL 2232667, at *2 (Cal.App. July 27, 200).^[3] (Exh. 30, Doc. No. 7 at 1134). On June 29, 2007, the state prosecutor petitioned the Kern County Superior Court for an order committing Petitioner under California's Sexually Violent Predator Act, California Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600 et. seq., (“SVPA”). (Id.). On August 26, 2008, following a hearing, the Superior Court found Petitioner met the criteria to be designated a Sexually Violent Predator (“SVP”). (Id. at 1136). Specifically, the Superior Court found, “true, beyond a reasonable doubt, that [Petitioner] sustained a conviction for a sexually violent offense, and that [Petitioner] had two mental disorders: paraphilia not otherwise specified, and a psychotic disorder not otherwise specified.” (Id. at 1137). The Court further found beyond a reasonable doubt that Petitioner “was not amenable to treatment.” (Id). The Superior Court ordered Petitioner's commitment to the State Department of Mental Health for an unspecified term. (Id.).

2

Petitioner's federal challenges to his 2008 commitment alleging violations of his federal constitutional rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses and his civil commitment as constituting an Ex post Facto violation were denied on the merits in 2011. Russ v. Ahlin, Case No. 09-cv-01904-DLB, 2011 WL 4048776 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2011) (Exh. 29, Doc. No.7 at 1113-1131).

B. Petitioner's Additional Post-Commitment Challenges

In a December 2013 annual evaluation, one doctor reported that Petitioner no longer fit the criteria for commitment as an SVP, although his mental condition had not changed. (See Exh. 25, Doc. No. 7 at 1093). After Coalinga State Hospital declined to request judicial review of Petitioner's commitment pursuant to Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6605(c), the Fresno County Superior Court ordered the Hospital to file a habeas petition on Petitioner's behalf seeking judicial review of Petitioner's SVP status. (Id.). In July 2016, following an evidentiary hearing during which three medical experts testified that Petitioner suffered from ASPD and alcoholic use disorder, and two of the three experts concluded that Petitioner continued to meet the criteria of a SVP, the Kern County Superior Court denied Petitioner habeas relief and found he continued to meet the criteria of an SVP under the SVPA. (Id. at 1095-97). In 2018, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the Eastern District of California challenging the July 2016 Kern County Superior Court decision denying Petitioner post-commitment release. (Exh. 11, Doc. No. 7 at 142-147). In 2020, Petitioner's 2018 federal habeas petition was denied as untimely. Russ v. Price, Case No. 18-cv-01154, 2020 WL 6747739 (E.D. Cal. May 15, 2020), findings and recommendations adopted by 2020 WL 6742736 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2020) (Exh. 9-10, Doc. 7 at 132-40).

C. The Instant Petition

Petitioner filed a state habeas petition in the Kern County Superior Court challenging his continued commitment on October 30, 2020. The Kern County Superior Court denied Petitioner relief in a reasoned decision on February 21, 2021. (Exh. 8, Doc. No. 7 at 127-130). Petitioner appealed the denial of relief and both Fifth Appellate Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court summarily denied relief. (Exh.7, Doc. No. 7 at 125 and Exh. 2, Doc. No. 7 at 18). Petitioner now proceeds before this Court on his federal Petition.

3

II. APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS

Under Rule 4, if a petition is not dismissed at screening, the judge “must order the respondent to file an answer, motion, or other response” to the petition. R. Governing 2254 Cases 4. The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 state that “the judge may want to authorize the respondent to make a motion to dismiss based upon information furnished by respondent.” A motion to dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus is construed as a request for the court to dismiss under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. O'Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990). Under Rule 4, a district court must dismiss a habeas petition if it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998).

A. The Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA)

The SVPA provides for the civil commitment of a person found to be “a person who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense against one or more victims and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that he or she will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior.” Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6600(a)(1). “Diagnosed mental disorder,” as defined in the SVPA, “includes a congenital or acquired condition affecting the emotional or volitional capacity that predisposes the person to the commission of criminal sexual acts in a degree constituting the person a menace to the health and safety of others.” § 6600(a)(4)(c).

“Before an SVP commitment petition is filed in Superior Court, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) has screened an inmate, determined he is likely to be an SVP, and referred him to the California Department of State Hospitals where the inmate has undergone a ‘full evaluation' by two mental health experts who ‘have concurred that the person currently meets the criteria for commitment under the SVPA.' . . . Although initial evaluations ... must agree, a lack of concurrence between updated or replacement evaluations does not require dismissal of the petition.” Mackenzie v. Price, 2022 WL 16735363, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 5, 2022) (citing Reilly v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.4th 641, 646-48 (2013)). After the petition is filed, the superior court must determine whether there is probable cause to believe that

4

the individual named in the petition is likely to engage in sexually violent predatory criminal behavior upon his or her release; and if the judge determines there is probable cause, then a jury trial is conducted at which the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual meets the criteria as an SVP. §§ 6602-03.

Individuals found to be SVPs are committed to the custody of the DSH for an indeterminate term of commitment. See id. § 6604. The SVPA requires the DSH to conduct examinations of civilly committed persons and to submit an annual report with the committing court considering “whether the committed person currently meets the definition of a sexually violent predator and whether conditional release to a less restrictive alternative [] or an unconditional discharge [] is in the best interest of the person and conditions can be imposed that would adequately protect the community.” Id. §§ 6604.9(a), 6605.

B. Ground One: State Law Claim Not Cognizable

In his first ground for relief, Petitioner asserts that the Kern County Superior Court's finding that his ASPD diagnosis “alone” predisposes him to engage in sexual offenses under the SVPA violates his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Respondent correctly notes that “federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.” Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219 (2011) (quoting Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991)). “The habeas statute ‘unambiguously provides that a federal court may issue a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.'” Swarthout, 562 U.S. at 219 (internal citations omitted). “‘[I]t is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions.'” Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. 1, 5 (2010) (internal citations omitted). Rather, a federal habeas court is bound by the state court's determination concerning the provisions of state law. See Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74, 76...