Jackson v. California Department of Mental HealthJackson v. California Department of Mental Health
MEMORANDUM
Vashon Tyrone Jackson seeks federal habeas relief, claiming that his commitment under California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) violates federal due process. Jackson was committed in 1996 after qualifying for the SVPA by virtue of three previous convictions for unlawful sexual intеrcourse with a minor and forcible rape. Jackson argues California unlawfully held him in custody for SVPA proceedings after he had successfully completed a 6-month sentence for a parole violation. As a result, he maintains his continuing custody under the SVPA violates his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.
Because California’s application of state law was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of United States Supreme Court due process law, we DENY his ha-beas corpus petition.
I. Background
The parties are familiar with the facts and procedural background so we need not recount all of the details here.
In sum, California’s SVPA allows the state to confíne particularly dangerous individuals who have been convicted of multiple sexual offenses.
The SVPA took effect on January 1, 1996, when Jackson was in prison for a parole violation. He was scheduled for parole release at 12:00 a.m. on February 25, 1996. Because Jackson had multiple rape convictions, state officials began considering him for confinement under the SVPA. The state Board of Prison Terms (BPT) completed several preliminary steps in late 1995. On January 29, 1996 and February 20, 1996, Jackson was evaluated by two psychologists, as required by the SVPA, and both detеrmined that Jackson met the criteria for civil confinement under the SVPA.
On January 26, 1996, “perhaps concerned that it would not be able to satisfy the prerequisites for filing an SVPA petition before Jackson’s scheduled release,”
On February 27, the day before Jackson’s new release dаte and two days after his original one, the BPT determined that there was probable cause that Jackson was a sexually violent predator. As a result, the BPT placed a 45-day hold on Jackson’s release pursuant to
On March 13, 1996, while the 45-day hold was in force, the Saсramento County District Attorney filed a petition in superi- or court to have'Jackson committed under the SVPA. After several hearings were held, including ones on April 8 and 15, Jackson was appointed an attorney. Jackson waived time requirements under the SVPA, and the mandatory judicial probable cause hearing was continued until May 6, 1996. After further continuance requests by Jackson, the superior court finally found probable cause existed to believe Jackson met the criteria for civil confinement as a SVP.
On June 2, 1997, a jury determined that Jackson was a sexually violent predator, and he was ordered committed for two years at Atascadero State Hospital. Jackson directly appealed, raising issues unrelated to this case. He did not challenge the jurisdiction of the state court pursuant to thе SVPA. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the jury verdict and the California Supreme Court denied Jackson’s petition for review.
While his direct appeal of the jury verdict was pending, Jackson filed a state habeas petition. In his petition, he argued the three-dаy hold on his release was illegal and the state was required to release him on February 25 under California’s “mandatory kick-out” rule. In particular, Jackson claimed he was not in “lawful” custody when the SVPA petition was filed and therefore the state court did not have jurisdiction tо order him confined. Both the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court summarily denied his habeas petitions.
Jackson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court, and after a remand on procedural grounds, Jackson,
Whether the judgment under which Mr. Jackson is in custody was rendered by a court without jurisdiction in violation of his federal constitutional right to due process of law.
This appeal followed.
II. Standard of Review
We review a district court’s denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus de novo. Eslaminia v. White,
On appeal, Jackson contends his due process rights were violated by California. His claims center on whether California unlawfully held him in custody under the SVPA thereby violating his federal due process rights. We conclude that Jackson was properly held pursuant to California law.
A. Custody
First, Jackson argues he was not in “lawful custody” at the time the BPT conducted its SVPA probable cause determination. We disagree.
1. Scope of Review of State Law Error
“[Fjederal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.” Estelle v. McGuire,
Hence, a federal habeas corpus petition must allege a deprivation of one or more federal rights to present a cognizable claim pursuant to
2. Custody was Lawful or in Good Faith
Jackson claims, as a “parolee on parole,” the SVPA was inapplicable to him. Specifically, he claims the SVPA—as in effect in 1996—only permitted civil confinement of “inmates who were in custody serving a determinate sentence or in custody following a revocation of parole.” This is incorrect.
California courts interprеt state law and deem parolees to be in legal custody while on parole status. People v. Hernandez,
Even if the BPT exceeded its detention authority, “custody” as intended by the SVPA was not lost. The California legislature amended section 6601 tо provide as follows: “A petition shall not be dismissed on the basis of a later judicial or administrative determination that the individual’s custody was unlawful, if the unlawful custody was the result of a good faith mistake of fact or law.” People v. Superior Court (Small),
Nevertheless, even assuming Jackson’s custody was “unlawful” as a matter of state law, his contentions regarding the BPT’s and California courts’ lack of jurisdiction are not persuasive.
California courts have stated that lawful custody is not a jurisdictional prerequisite for a SVPA application. E.g., People v. Hedge,
In sum, Jackson’s custody did not violate state law.
B. Due Process
Even if Jackson’s custody was not lawful under the SVPA, any confinement did not implicate his federal due process rights.
California courts have clearly stated that • lawful custody by the California Department of Corrections is not a jurisdictional prerequisite for application of the SVPA, only actual physical custody. See Hedge,
First, although Jackson pаints his civil confinement as a substantive due process violation, in reality, he claims that the state failed to follow its own procedures for a SVP determination.
As discussed above, California courts have found
More significantly, we rejected the same argument in Hubbart v. Knapp,
*588 Under AEDPA, we again defer to the state court, which held that “there is no due process violation where the person was not in lawful custody at the time the petition was filed ... [provided that] custody ... resulted] from a good faith error rather than negligent or intentional wrongdoing.
:¡{ ;j: ;}:
The California appellate court concluded that “an SVPA commitment resulting from unlawful сustody [does not] violate due process where, as here, the unlawful custody was the result of good faith error and where, as here, the SVP is provided with numerous procedural safeguards. SVPA safeguards include requirements that accused sexually violent predators receive diagnoses from two psychiatrists or psychologists, assistance of counsel, and trial by jury on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. As the state court concluded, “[a] person in unlawful custody who is alleged to be an SVP still has all of the procedural safeguards that the SVPA provides in order to decrease the risk of an erroneous liberty deprivation.”
Jackson alleges the unlawful custody was not a product of a good faith mistake. But he fails to present any evidеnce other than his legal arguments, which provide no support.
In any event, the Supreme Court has allowed states to impose involuntary civil commitment on individuals who are not currently in actual custody, after expiration of a prison term, or even where the individual hаd been found not guilty of the crime by reason of insanity. Kansas v. Hendricks,
In conclusion, although Jackson’s state habeas petition was summarily denied, our review of the embedded state legal issues satisfies us that Cаlifornia properly fulfilled the SVPA prerequisites for civil commitment. Consequently, there is no due process claim here—the state’s action was not “contrary to” nor an “unreasonable application” of Supreme Court law on procedural due process.
For the reasons set forth above, we DENY Jackson’s petition.
Notes
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
. Jackson argues the BPT's actions were “at the very least, grossly negligent” conduct. Other than stating the BPT’s actions were not permitted under the California statutes or regulations, Jackson offers no proof the BPT did not act in good faith reliance on its authority under the relevant law.
. The federal habeas petitioner in Hubbart similarly contended his "custody” by the California Department of Corrections was unlawful and thereby precluded the application of the SVPA.