In re Loveton
198 Cal. Rptr. 3d 514
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Six Contra Costa County defendants found incompetent to stand trial (IST) experienced delays (61–86 days) between court commitment under Penal Code §1370 and admission to Department of State Hospitals (DSH) facilities; petitions for habeas corpus and prospective relief followed.
- Trial court issued a standing order requiring DSH–Napa to admit Contra Costa IST defendants within 60 days of the court’s commitment order, provided the complete §1370 packet arrived within five court days.
- DSH appealed, arguing the court lacked authority to set a uniform transfer deadline, the order impaired DSH’s statutory discretion and operational duties, risked constitutional claims by other counties’ defendants, and improperly granted class/prospective relief via habeas.
- Petitioners cross-appealed seeking a 30‑day deadline.
- Legislature amended §1370 (2014) during the appeal: courts now commit to DSH (not a specific hospital), DSH must evaluate placement after receiving the §1370 packet (now required to include medical records and be sent pre‑admission).
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the 60‑day outer limit as a permissible injunction, found it consistent with §1370 and precedent, and remanded to modify the order to conform to the 2014 statutory changes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court has authority to impose a transfer deadline to effectuate §1370’s 90‑day reporting requirement | Courts may set a reasonable outer limit to ensure meaningful 90‑day hospital evaluation and reporting | No statutory deadline; court exceeded jurisdiction and violated separation of powers | Court upheld authority to set a reasonable outer limit (60 days) tied to §1370’s 90‑day reporting duty |
| Whether a countywide standing deadline unlawfully interferes with DSH’s individualized placement discretion | Deadline is necessary to protect due‑process rights of Contra Costa IST detainees | Order unduly restricts DSH’s statutory duty to assess and place patients individually | Court held the 60‑day outer limit does not eliminate individualized assessment and appropriately balances interests |
| Whether habeas corpus may provide prospective/class relief (issuing a countywide standing order) | Habeas can grant prospective relief to remedy recurring rights deprivations affecting detainees generally | Habeas cannot be used to create a blanket local rule or bypass individual petitions | Court held habeas may furnish prospective/class relief for recurring systemic violations; standing order permissible |
| Effect of 2014 amendments to §1370 (commit to DSH; DSH selects hospital; packet requirements) and whether the order must be vacated | Amendments do not materially change process here; order should be conformed only to statutory language | Amendments require reconsideration because DSH now has additional duties and placement discretion | Court found amendments did not materially undercut the 60‑day outer limit here but remanded to modify the order to reflect that courts commit to DSH and DSH selects placement |
| Whether 60 days was too long and should be shortened to 30 days (cross‑appeal) | Petitioners: due process requires a 30‑day limit | DSH: 60 days is necessary given capacity and administrative constraints | Court rejected 30‑day request; 60 days reasonably balances detainees’ rights and DSH operational realities |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (U.S. 1972) (limits on commitment duration for criminally charged incompetent defendants)
- In re Davis, 8 Cal.3d 798 (Cal. 1973) (adopting Jackson rule; indefinite commitment without assessing likelihood of restoration violates due process)
- In re Mille, 182 Cal.App.4th 635 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (delay to transfer that leaves little in‑hospital time before §1370’s 90‑day report is unconstitutional)
- People v. Brewer, 235 Cal.App.4th 122 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (addressing similar standing order; remand required where statutory amendments materially alter placement duties)
- Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (U.S. 2011) (courts must enforce constitutional rights even if relief impacts institutional administration)