Opinion
No. C 02-2790 CRB (PR)
July 2, 2002
ORDER OF DISMISSAL (Docs #2 4)
On July 10, 2000, a juiy in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda ("Alameda County Superior Court") determined that petitioner was a sexually violent predator under California's Sexually Violent Predator Act, Cal. Welt Inst. Code § 6600 ("SVPA"), and committed him to Atascadero State Hospital for a period of two years. About a month ago, petitioner was transferred to the Alameda County Jail because the district attorney initiated new SVPA proceedings to have him committed for an additional two-year period. Those civil commitment proceedings are still pending in Alameda County Superior Court.
Petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this court seeking "six (6) hours physical law library access per week and one hundred and twenty (120) minutes non-collect local telephone access per week." He claims that the "paging system" available to him at the Alameda County Jail "is woefully inadequate for the purposes of conducting legal research necessary for [petitioner] to defend himself." He also claims a violation of equal protection because pretrial detainees facing state criminal, rather than civil, proceedings are offered more access to the law library and telephone.
Petitioner's claim that the legal access program at the Alameda County Jail is negatively affecting his right to a fair trial in the state courts must be brought in his pending state civil commitment proceedings and not here. It is well-established that federal courts generally should abstain and not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings. See Younger v. Hats, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). The same is true where, as here, non-criminal state proceedings, judicial in nature, are pending; the state proceedings involve important state interests; and the state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional issue(s). See Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). This court accordingly will abstain.
In any event, petitioner's constitutional claims are without merit. Petitioner states no claim for denial of access to the courts because the attachments to the petition make clear that he is represented by counsel (Ms. Adams) in the pending state civil commitment proceedings. Cf. United States v. Wilson, 690 F.2d 1267, 1272 (9th Cir. 1982) (mere offer of court-appointed counsel satisfies government's obligation to provide pre-trial detainee meaningful access to the courts). And petitioner states no claim for denial of equal protection because, as he acknowledges, pretrial detainees facing state criminal proceedings and pretrial detainees facing state civil proceedings are not similarly situated. See City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985) ("The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment commands that no State shall `deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,' which is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.") (citation omitted).
For the foregoing reasons, petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis (docs #2 4) is DENIED and the petition is DISMISSED.
The clerk shall close the file and terminate all pending motions as moot.