Free Answer to Complaint - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-00436-J-NLS

Document 11

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 1 of 16

1 EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of the State of California 2 DANE R. GILLETTE Chief Assistant Attorney General 3 GARY W. SCHONS Senior Assistant Attorney General 4 KEVIN VIENNA Supervising Deputy Attorney General 5 ANTHONY DA SILVA, State Bar No. 159330 Deputy Attorney General 110 West A Street, Suite 1100 6 San Diego, CA 92101 P.O. Box 85266 7 San Diego, CA 92186-5266 Telephone: (619) 645-2608 8 Fax: (619) 645-2271 Email: [email protected] 9 10 Attorneys for Respondent 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. STEVEN MAYBERG, Warden, Respondent. DAVID O'SHELL, 08CV0436 J (NLS) Petitioner, ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:08-cv-00436-J-NLS

Document 11

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 2 of 16

1 EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of the State of California 2 DANE R. GILLETTE Chief Assistant Attorney General 3 GARY W. SCHONS Senior Assistant Attorney General 4 KEVIN VIENNA Supervising Deputy Attorney General 5 ANTHONY DA SILVA, State Bar No. 159330 Deputy Attorney General 110 West A Street, Suite 1100 6 San Diego, CA 92101 P.O. Box 85266 7 San Diego, CA 92186-5266 Telephone: (619) 645-2608 8 Fax: (619) 645-2271 Email: [email protected] 9 10 Attorneys for Respondent 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 COMES NOW RESPONDENT Dr. Stephen W. Mayberg, Director of the California v. STEVEN MAYBERG, Warden, Respondent. DAVID O'SHELL, Petitioner, 08CV0436 J (NLS) ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

21 Department of Mental Health, by and through his counsel, Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney General 22 for the State of California and Anthony Da Silva, Deputy Attorney General, and files his Answer 23 to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by David O'Shell 24 ("O'Shell") in compliance with this Court's orders filed on April 28 and June 13, 2008. Under Rule 25 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Respondent 26 hereby denies and affirmatively alleges as follows: 27 28
08CV0436

1

Case 3:08-cv-00436-J-NLS

Document 11

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 3 of 16

1 2 3

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL AVERMENTS O'Shell is lawfully in Respondent's custody on a civil petition, in San Diego County

4 Superior Court Case No. MH 100473, after a jury found he was a sexually violent predator ("SVP") 5 within the meaning of California Welfare and Institution Code sections 6600-6604. (Lodgment 1 6 Clerk's Transcript ("CT") at 159.) 7 On October 22, 1982, in San Diego County Municipal Court Case No. CRD-60538,

8 O'Shell plead guilty to oral copulation with person under the age of 18 (Cal. Penal Code § 288a(c)), 9 and admitted that he used a deadly weapon ­ a knife (Cal. Penal Code § 12022.3(a)). (Lodgment 10 2 - Supp. CT at 3-4.) On November 17, 1982, the Hon. Roy B. Cazares sentenced O'Shell to 11 11 years in prison. (Lodgment 2 - Supp. CT at 5-6.) 12 On May 23, 1996, in San Diego Superior Court Case No. SCD 115690, O'Shell plead

13 guilty to lewd act upon a child (Cal. Penal Code § 288.5(a)), and admitted he did not remain free of 14 prison custody and free of the commission of a felony for ten years (Cal. Penal Code § 667.6(a)). 15 (Lodgment 2 - Supp. CT at 24-25.) On July 11, 1996, the Hon. Kenneth K. So sentenced O'Shell 16 to 21 years in prison. (Lodgment 2 - Supp. CT at 26-27.) 17 On November 16, 2006, the State filed a Petition for Involuntary Treatment of a Sexually

18 Violent Predator (Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6600 et seq.) in San Diego County Superior Court Case 19 No. MH 100437. (Lodgment 1 - CT at 1-61.) On the same date, the Hon. Jeffrey F. Fraser signed 20 an Order to Produce O'Shell for arraignment on December 1, 2006. (Lodgment 1 - CT at 62-63.) 21 On December 1, 2006, O'Shell was present in court with his attorney, Deputy Public

22 Defender Jane Montague. O'Shell denied the allegations in the petition, waived statutory time for 23 trial and, on his motion, a status conference was set for January 12, 2007. (Lodgment 1 - CT at 139.) 24 On January 12, 2007, O'Shell and his attorney, Deputy Public Defender Dalen Duong,

25 were present in court. The probable cause hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code § 6602 26 was set for April 25, 2007. (Lodgment 1 - CT at 140.) On March 29, 2007, by stipulation of counsel 27 the date of the probable cause hearing was changed to April 24, 2007. (Lodgment 1 - CT at 141.) 28 ///
08CV0436

2

Case 3:08-cv-00436-J-NLS

Document 11

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 4 of 16

1

A few weeks earlier, on February 6, 2007, O'Shell filed a petition for writ of habeas

2 corpus in San Diego County Superior Court Case No. HC 18785. Citing Welfare and Institutions 3 Code section 6601.5, O'Shell claimed that his right to due process was violated because he did not 4 receive a probable cause hearing within 10 days of execution of the order to appear on November 5 16, 2006 (Lodgment 4 - Order Denying Petition at 1-2.) 6 On March 22, 2007, the superior court denied the habeas petition. The court noted that

7 O'Shell filed the petition without the knowledge or approval of his counsel. (Lodgment 4 at 1.) 8 In denying the petition, the superior court stated that: 9 10 11 12 As noted, and as verified from the court file in MH 100473, at the time the Petition for Involuntary Treatment was filed, [O'Shell] was incarcerated at the Solano State Prison. Thus, he is, and has been, "detained" at least since 1996 on this particular case. [O'Shell] has failed to show any prejudice or any reason why this delay has caused him any detriment or loss of due process rights. [¶] In fact, according to the Court's minutes, [O'Shell]] waived statutory time, and it appears that the Status Conference for January 12, 2007, was as a result of [O'Shell]'s own motion.

13 (Lodgment 4 at 3.) 14 On April 24, 2007, after a hearing, the trial court found there was probable cause that

15 O'Shell was a SVP. (Lodgment 1 - CT at 143; Lodgment 3 - Reporter's Transcript ("RT") (April 16 24, 2005) at 1-107.) 17 On that same date, O'Shell constructively filed a habeas corpus petition in California

18 Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, Case No. D050847.1/ O'Shell requested 19 dismissal of the SVP petition and immediate release from custody because he again claimed that 20 he did not receive a probable cause hearing within 10 days of the execution of the order to appear 21 on November 16, 2006. (Lodgment 5.) 22 On May 18, 2007, the Court of Appeal denied the petition. (Lodgment 6.) The appellate

23 court noted that O'Shell alleged that: (1) On November 16, 2006, the State filed the petition against 24 him seeking involuntary treatment as a SVP and the trial court signed an order to produce him for 25 26 1. Under the "mailbox rule," this Court may consider the date that O'Shell filed his habeas petitions as the date of filing because, presumably, that is the day that O'Shell handed it to prison 27 authorities for mailing. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S. Ct. 2379, 101 L. Ed. 2d 245 28 (1988); Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1222 (9th Cir. 2001).
08CV0436

3

Case 3:08-cv-00436-J-NLS

Document 11

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 5 of 16

1 arraignment on December 1, 2006; (2) at his appearance on December 1, 2006, he did not consent 2 to waive statutory time (contrary to the indication in the minute order) and the court set the case for 3 a status conference; (3) at the status conference on January 12, 2007, the court calendared a probable 4 cause hearing in April; and, (4) although he asked his attorney to submit a motion to dismiss the 5 SVP proceedings to the court, his attorney refused. (Lodgment 6 at 1.) The appellate court stated 6 its reasons for denying the petition as follows: 7 8 9 10 11 (Lodgment 6 at 2.) 12 On May 22, 2007, O'Shell constructively filed a habeas corpus petition in California Court O'Shell is improperly attempting to use habeas corpus as a vehicle to bypass a decision by his attorney of record not to file a motion to dismiss. He has not shown that he requested new counsel or attempted to revoke his purported time waivers. O'Shell has not provided copies of the relevant documents (the petition, a request for review under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6601.5, the November 16, 2006 order, or any minute orders or transcripts). The petition is denied.

13 of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, Case No. D050983. (Lodgment 7.) 14 15 16 17 18 On August 14, 2007, the appellate court denied the petition as follows: The petition is procedurally barred because it is repetitive, and [O'Shell] has not established an exception to the procedural bar. (In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 765, 767-768.) The petition also fails to state a prima facie case for relief because [O'Shell] has not established that his trial counsel's decisions to waive time for and request a continuance of the probable cause hearing fell outside counsel's general authority to control all decisions affecting trial tactics and court proceedings. (See, e.g., Townsend v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 774, 781.) The petition is denied.

19 (Lodgment 8.) 20 On September 10, 2007, O'Shell filed a habeas corpus petition in California Supreme

21 Court Case No. S156411. (Lodgment 9.) O'Shell specifically alleged that: "The court erred by not 22 holding my arraignment or probable cause hearing within the 10-day time limit in violation of 23 W.I.C. § 6601.5 and Penal Code § 8596. The court also violated my 14th Amendment right to due 24 process. In so doing a substantial loss of liberty has occurred." (Lodgment 9 at 3, ¶ 6.) 25 On November 8, 2007, an amended SVP petition was filed that conformed to the changes

26 that took place on November 8, 2006, after voters passed Proposition 83 (also known as "Jessica's 27 Law") which amended the SVPA. (Lodgment 1 - CT at 64-70.) 28 On November 14, 2007, the California Supreme Court denied the habeas corpus petition
08CV0436

4

Case 3:08-cv-00436-J-NLS

Document 11

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 6 of 16

1 without comment or citation. (Lodgment 10.) 2 On November 27, 2007, O'Shell's civil trial began in San Diego Superior Court Case No.

3 SCD 115690. (Lodgment 1 - CT at 149-150; Lod. 3 - 3 RT at 139.) On December 6, 2007, the jury 4 found that O'Shell was a SVP. (Lodgment 1 - CT at 159-160; Lodgment 3 - RT at 710.) On 5 December 13, 2007, O'Shell filed a Notice of Appeal. (Lodgment 1 - CT at 138.) O'Shell's appeal 6 is currently pending in California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, Case 7 No. D052192. 8 On March 7, 2008, O'Shell filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28

9 U.S.C. § 2254 in this Court. On March 28, 2008, this Court dismissed the Petition with leave to 10 amend because O'Shell failed to name a proper respondent. 11 12 13 14 O'Shell's Petition is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 15 1996 ("AEDPA") because it was filed after its enactment on April 26, 1996. 110 Stat. 1214. See 16 Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202, 207, 123 S. Ct. 1398, 155 L. Ed. 2d 363 (2003) (habeas 17 application filed after the AEDPA's effective date of April 24, 1996, is reviewed under the 18 AEDPA); Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 70, 123 S. Ct. 1166, 155 L. Ed. 2d 144 (2003). As 19 amended by the AEDPA, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 reads: 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 (d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgement of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim ­ (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. To obtain federal habeas relief, O'Shell must satisfy either § 2254(d)(1) or § 2254(d)(2). On April 21, 2008, O'Shell filed a First Amended Petition in this Court. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

28 Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 403, 120 S. Ct. 1495, 146 L. Ed. 2d 389 (2000). The Supreme
08CV0436

5

Case 3:08-cv-00436-J-NLS

Document 11

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 7 of 16

1 Court interprets § 2254(d)(1) as follows: 2 3 4 5 Under the "contrary to" clause, a federal habeas corpus court may grant the writ if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by this Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than this Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts. Under the "unreasonable application" clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from this Court's decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case.

6 Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. at 412-13; Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. at 73-74. 7 A state court need not cite Supreme Court precedent when resolving a habeas corpus

8 claim. Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8, 123 S. Ct. 362, 154 L. Ed. 2d 263 (2002). "[S]o long as 9 neither the reasoning nor the result of the state-court decision contradicts [Supreme Court 10 precedent]," the state court decision will not be "contrary to" clearly established federal law. Id. 11 In addition, the state court's factual determinations must be presumed correct, and the

12 federal court must accept all factual findings made by the state court unless the petitioner can rebut 13 "the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Purkett 14 v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 769, 115 S. Ct. 1769, 131 L. Ed. 2d 834 (1995); Thompson v. Keohane, 516 15 U.S. 99, 109, 116 S. Ct. 457, 133 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1995); Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1388 (9th 16 Cir. 1997). Under § 2254(d)(2), "a decision adjudicated on the merits in a state court and based on 17 a factual determination will not be overturned on factual grounds unless objectively unreasonable 18 in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 19 322, 340, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 154 L. Ed. 2d 931 (2003). "Once the state court's fact-finding process 20 survives this intrinsic review [,] . . . the state court's findings are dressed in a presumption of 21 correctness []" and may be overturned only if new evidence presented for the first time in federal 22 court "amounts to clear and convincing proof that the state-court finding is in error." Taylor v. 23 Maddox, 366 F.3d 992, 1000 (9th Cir. 2004); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Kesser v. Cambra, 24 465 F.3d 351, 358 n.1 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (clear and convincing proof required to rebut state 25 court findings of facts with extrinsic evidence presented for the first time in the federal habeas 26 court). 27 28
08CV0436

6

Case 3:08-cv-00436-J-NLS

Document 11

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 8 of 16

1 2 3

III. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, EXHAUSTION, PROCEDURAL BARS O'Shell's First Amended Petition was timely filed with this Court. 28 U.S.C. §

4 2244(d)(1)(A). The claims contained in his First Amended Petition have been exhausted in the state 5 courts and are not procedurally barred. 6 7 8 IV. ABSTENTION On June 27, 2008, O'Shell filed a direct appeal challenging his SVP commitment in

9 California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, Case No. D052192. 10 (Lodgment 11 at 2.) Federal courts generally may not enjoin ongoing state criminal proceedings. 11 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 49-53, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1971) (Younger abstention 12 doctrine); Hirsh v. Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of California, 67 F.3d 708, 712 (9th 13 Cir. 1995). In this case, Younger requires dismissal of the petition, and a stay is not a proper option. 14 See, e.g., Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 577, 93 S. Ct. 1689, 36 L. Ed. 2d 488 (1973) ("Younger 15 v. Harris contemplates the outright dismissal of the federal suit, and the presentation of all claims, 16 both state and federal, to the state courts"); Delta Dental Plan of Calif. Inc. v. Mendoza, 139 F.3d 17 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1998) ("When a case is one in which the Younger doctrine applies, the district 18 court has no discretion, it must dismiss"); Coleman v. Mayberg, 2005 WL 1876061, *4, 2005 U.S. 19 Dist. LEXIS 44142, *13 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2005) (dismissing petition without prejudice to refiling 20 after SVPA commitment proceedings, including appeal, are completed). Accordingly, O'Shell's 21 Petition must be dismissed. 22 23 24 V. CLAIMS In his First Amended Petition, O'Shell claims that his right to due process and

25 Constitutional rights were violated because: (1) a probable cause hearing was not held within 10 26 days as required by California Welfare and Institutions Code section 6601.5 because the SVP 27 petition was filed on November 16, 2006 and he did not appear in court until December 1, 2006 (Pet. 28 at 6 - Ground One); (2) at his appearance on December 1, 2006, he did not consent to waive
08CV0436

7

Case 3:08-cv-00436-J-NLS

Document 11

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 9 of 16

1 statutory time and the court set the case for a status conference on January 12, 2007 (Pet. at 7 2 Ground Two); (3) at the status conference on January 12, 2007, he did not consent to waive statutory 3 time and the court calendared a probable cause hearing on April 25, 2007, which was changed to 4 April 24, 2007 (Pet. at 8 - Ground Three). 5 O'Shell's claims were denied on the merits by the superior court and state appellate court

6 in reasoned decisions where they concluded that: (1) O'Shell failed to show any prejudice or any 7 reason why the claimed delay caused him any detriment or loss of his due process or other 8 Constitutional rights; (2) at his appearance on December 1, 2006, O'Shell waived time and the 9 setting of his status conference for December 1, 2006 was based on his own motion; (3) O'Shell 10 failed to show that he requested new counsel or attempted to revoke his purported time waivers; and, 11 (4) O'Shell failed to show that his trial counsel's decisions to waive time for and request a 12 continuance of the probable cause hearing fell outside counsel's general authority to control all 13 decisions affecting trial tactics and court proceedings. (Lodgments 4, 6, 8.) The California

14 Supreme Court's summary denial of O'Shell's habeas petition means it adopted the reasoning of the 15 lower courts. See Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 804-05, 111 S. Ct. 2590, 115 L. Ed. 2d 706 16 & n. 3 (1991) (presumption higher court agrees with lower court's reasoning where former affirms 17 latter without discussion); see also Lajoie v. Thompson, 217 F.3d 663, 669 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2000) 18 (holding federal courts look to last reasoned state court opinion in determining whether state court's 19 rejection of petitioner's claims was contrary to or unreasonable application of federal law under 28 20 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)). O'Shell has failed to meet his burden on federal habeas corpus to show that 21 the decisions by the state courts in denying his claims on habeas corpus were contrary to, or an 22 unreasonable determination of established United States Supreme Court precedent. Accordingly, 23 O'Shell is not entitled to federal habeas relief as to any of the claims contained in his First Amended 24 Petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. at 403, 412-13. 25 26 27 VI. EVIDENTIARY HEARING O'Shell has not requested, and he is not entitled to, an evidentiary hearing to resolve any of his

28 pending claims. His claims are based on the state court record and were all reasonably denied on
08CV0436

8

Case 3:08-cv-00436-J-NLS

Document 11

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 10 of 16

1 the merits by the California courts. Any failure to develop the factual predicate for his claims cannot 2 be excused because he cannot show that: (1) the claims are predicated on a new rule of law with 3 retroactive application; or (2) the factual predicate for any of his claims could not have been 4 discovered earlier with due diligence; and (3) by clear and convincing evidence no reasonable fact 5 finder would find him guilty but for the claimed error. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e). 6 7 8 VII. LODGMENTS Counsel for Respondent has lodged all the all the transcripts, briefs, and opinions in

9 counsel's possession that are required by 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, Rule 5(c) and (d). Respondent 10 incorporates the lodgements into this Answer. 11 /// 12 /// 13 /// 14 /// 15 /// 16 /// 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 ///
08CV0436

9

Case 3:08-cv-00436-J-NLS

Document 11

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 11 of 16

1 VIII. 2 CONCLUSION 3 4 Respondent incorporates by references the Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed

5 in support of his Answer. Except as expressly admitted in this Answer, Respondent denies each and 6 every allegation in O'Shell's pending First Amended Petition. Respondent denies O'Shell's claim 7 of any violation of his constitutional rights, affirmatively alleges that the judgment of conviction did 8 not result from any violation of his federal constitutional rights, and alleges that the absence of any 9 violation of the federal Constitution compels denial of federal habeas corpus relief. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ASD:jr 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
08CV0436
80262831.wpd

Dated: July 24, 2008 Respectfully submitted, EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of the State of California DANE R. GILLETTE Chief Assistant Attorney General GARY W. SCHONS Senior Assistant Attorney General KEVIN VIENNA Supervising Deputy Attorney General

s/Anthony Da Silva ANTHONY DA SILVA Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Respondent

SD2008801116

10

Case 3:08-cv-00436-J-NLS

Document 11

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 12 of 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 IV. 7 V. 8 VI. 9 VII. 10 VIII. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CONCLUSION LODGMENTS CLAIMS ABSTENTION I. II. III.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL AVERMENTS STANDARD OF REVIEW STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, EXHAUSTION, PROCEDURAL BARS 2 5 7 7 7 8 9 10

EVIDENTIARY HEARING

08CV0436

i

Case 3:08-cv-00436-J-NLS

Document 11

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 13 of 16

1 2 3 Cases 4 Kesser v. Cambra 465 F.3d 351(9th Cir. 2006) 5

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page

6

6 Coleman v. Mayberg 2005 WL 1876061, *4 7 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44142, *13 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2005) 8 Delta Dental Plan of Calif. Inc. v. Mendoza 139 F.3d 1289 (9th Cir. 1998) 9 Early v. Packer 10 537 U.S. 3 123 S. Ct. 362 11 154 L. Ed. 2d 263 (2002) 12 Gibson v. Berryhill 411 U.S. 564 13 93 S. Ct. 1689 36 L. Ed. 2d 488 (1973) 14 Hirsh v. Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of California 15 67 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 1995) 16 Houston v. Lack 487 U.S. 266 17 108 S. Ct. 2379 101 L. Ed. 2d 245 (1988) 18 Huizar v. Carey 19 273 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2001) 20 Kesser v. Cambra 465 F.3d 351(9th Cir. 2006) 21 Lajoie v. Thompson 22 217 F.3d 663 (9th Cir. 2000) 23 Langford v. Day 110 F.3d 1380 (9th Cir. 1997) 24 Lockyer v. Andrade 25 538 U.S. 63 123 S. Ct. 1166 26 155 L. Ed. 2d 144 (2003) 27 28

7 7

6

7 7

3 3 6 8 6

5, 6

08CV0436

ii

Case 3:08-cv-00436-J-NLS

Document 11

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 14 of 16

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) 1 2 Miller-El v. Cockrell 537 U.S. 322 3 123 S. Ct. 1029 154 L. Ed. 2d 931 (2003) 4 Purkett v. Elem 5 514 U.S. 765 115 S. Ct. 1769 6 131 L. Ed. 2d 834 (1995) 7 Taylor v. Maddox 366 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2004) 8 Thompson v. Keohane 9 516 U.S. 99 116 S. Ct. 457 10 133 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1995) 11 Williams v. Taylor 529 U.S. 362 12 120 S. Ct. 1495 146 L. Ed. 2d 389 (2000) 13 Woodford v. Garceau 14 538 U.S. 202 123 S. Ct. 1398 15 155 L. Ed. 2d 363 (2003) 16 Ylst v. Nunnemaker 501 U.S. 797 17 111 S. Ct. 2590 115 L. Ed. 2d 706 (1991) 18 Younger v. Harris 19 401 U.S. 37 91 S. Ct. 746 20 27 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1971) 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
08CV0436

Page

6

6 6

6

5, 6, 8

5

8

7

Constitutional Provisions United States Constitution Fourteenth Amendment 4

iii

Case 3:08-cv-00436-J-NLS

Document 11

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 15 of 16

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) 1 2 Statutes 3 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA") 4 Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996) 5 California Penal Code § 288.5(a) 6 § 667.6(a) § 8596 7 § 12022.3(a) 8 California Welfare and Institution Code §§ 6600-6604 9 California Welfare and Institutions Code 10 § 6600 § 6601.5 11 § 6602 12 Title 28 United States Code § 2244(d)(1)(A) § 2254 14 § 2254(d)(1) § 2254(d)(2) 15 § 2254(e) § 2254(e)(1) 16 13 17 Court Rules 18 Federal Rules of Court rule 5 19 rule 5 (c) rule 5 (d) 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
08CV0436

Page

5 2 2 4 2 2 2 3, 4, 7 2

7 1, 5 5, 6, 8 5, 6 9 6

1 9

iv

Case 3:08-cv-00436-J-NLS

Document 11

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 16 of 16