Sammy Page v. Audrey King
932 F.3d 898
9th Cir.2019Background
- Sammy Page was civilly committed under California's SVPA in 2004 and has been detained pretrial on a 2006 probable-cause finding for recommitment.
- In 2012 defense experts questioned the Paraphilia NOS diagnosis; the state ordered new evaluations, which produced split opinions about Page's SVP status.
- The state court initially ordered a new probable-cause hearing but later rescinded that order; numerous continuances followed, many attributable to defense motions.
- Page filed a federal habeas petition in 2012 challenging pretrial detention as based on stale/invalid scientific evidence; the district court abstained under Younger.
- The Ninth Circuit considered whether Younger abstention was proper and whether any extraordinary circumstances (bad faith, harassment, irreparable harm) excused abstention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the state SVPA proceeding is "ongoing" for Younger purposes | Page: Delay is so long the proceeding is not ongoing | State: No final judgment; proceeding remains pending | Held: Proceeding is ongoing; absence of final judgment controls (Younger applies) |
| Whether extreme pretrial delay or other circumstances make Younger abstention inappropriate | Page: Long detention/irretrievable loss of liberty and stale probable-cause finding are extraordinary and cause irreparable harm | State: Delay largely due to defense; state ready for trial—no extraordinary circumstances | Held: Delay alone not extraordinary here; but other factors justify exception |
| Whether the irreparable-harm/exception to Younger applies to pretrial probable-cause challenges | Page: Pretrial probable-cause claim cannot be vindicated post-trial; fits Gerstein/Arevalo irreparable-harm exception | State: Page could raise claim in state court; Arevalo inapplicable | Held: Exception applies—claim is like Gerstein and Arevalo and seeks relief distinct from prosecution, so Younger abstention was improper |
| Whether district court should appoint counsel on remand | Page: Complex issues justify appointment under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A | State: Not directly argued here | Held: Court directed district court to reconsider appointment of counsel on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (Sup. Ct. 1971) (federal courts should generally abstain from interfering with ongoing state criminal proceedings)
- Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (Sup. Ct. 1975) (right to a judicial probable-cause determination may be enforced in federal court pretrial)
- Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423 (Sup. Ct. 1982) (extraordinary circumstances—bad faith, harassment—may permit federal intervention despite Younger)
- Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2018) (Younger does not require abstention for distinct pretrial conditions of confinement claims or where irreparable harm requires pretrial relief)
- Manuel v. City of Joliet, 137 S. Ct. 911 (Sup. Ct. 2017) (pretrial detention unsupported by probable cause may state a Fourth Amendment claim)
- San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Political Action Comm. v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2008) (state-initiated proceedings without final judgment are "ongoing" for Younger)
- Phillips v. Vasquez, 56 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 1995) (extreme state-court delay can, in rare cases, justify federal intervention)
- Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764 (9th Cir. 1972) (per curiam) (prior per curiam Younger abstention in challenge to probable-cause determination; distinguished/overruled by later authority)
- Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82 (9th Cir. 1980) (speedy-trial claims generally do not excuse Younger abstention)
- Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2012) (reaffirms limits on using speedy-trial delay to overcome Younger)