Nelson v. Van Hook
2:17-cv-00780
W.D. Wash.Jun 21, 2017Background
- Petitioner Zachary Nelson, pro se, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his June 5, 2012 civil commitment as a sexually violent predator and the length/continuation of that commitment.
- Nelson previously appealed the civil-commitment determination to the Washington Court of Appeals, which affirmed in an unpublished decision on November 18, 2013, with mandate issued January 17, 2014; he did not seek review in the Washington Supreme Court.
- The federal district court found Nelson’s federal habeas petition both unexhausted (claims not presented to the state’s highest court and differing from those on direct appeal) and likely procedurally defaulted under Washington law.
- Washington’s statutes (RCW 7.36.130 and RCW 10.73.090) bar collateral attack more than one year after judgment becomes final, and Nelson did not timely pursue state collateral relief.
- The court declined to serve the petition or order an answer, gave Nelson leave to amend and cure the deficiencies, and set a July 21, 2017 deadline to file an amended § 2254 petition or face dismissal with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nelson exhausted state remedies before filing § 2254 | Nelson challenges the commitment and its duration in federal habeas | Respondent asserts Nelson did not present these claims to the state’s highest court and claims on appeal differ | Court: Petition is unexhausted because claims were not fairly presented to the state supreme court and differ from issues on direct appeal |
| Whether Nelson’s claims are procedurally defaulted under Washington law | Nelson argues entitlement to federal habeas review of commitment and duration | Respondent cites RCW 7.36.130 and RCW 10.73.090 to show state collateral relief is time-barred | Court: Claims appear procedurally defaulted and would be denied in state court absent a showing of cause and prejudice |
| Whether Nelson established cause and prejudice to excuse default | Nelson did not allege an external objective factor or ineffective assistance that prevented timely state filing | Respondent contends no cause or prejudice shown to excuse default | Court: Nelson must show cause (objective external factor) and actual prejudice; record contains no such showing |
| Whether the petition should be served or the respondent ordered to answer | Nelson requests federal habeas adjudication | Respondent asks dismissal/denial due to exhaustion/default/timeliness | Court: Declined to serve/respond; granted leave to amend to attempt to cure deficiencies by deadline |
Key Cases Cited
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) (exhaustion principle for habeas relief)
- Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (1971) (requirement that state courts have a full and fair opportunity to consider claims)
- Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083 (9th Cir. 1985) (exhaustion/principles for presenting claims to state courts)
- Burbank–Glendale–Pasadena Airport Auth. v. City of Burbank, 136 F.3d 1360 (9th Cir. 1998) (judicial notice of public court records)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (cause-and-prejudice standard to overcome procedural default)
- Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (1986) (objective factors that can establish cause to excuse default)
- Hughes v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, 800 F.2d 905 (9th Cir. 1986) (petitioner’s own inadequacies do not constitute cause)
- Thomas v. Lewis, 945 F.2d 1119 (9th Cir. 1991) (procedural default principles)