(HC) Clark v. Black ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALPHONSO RAMON CLARK, Case No. 2:21-cv-02017-WBS-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. THAT THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BE DENIED 14 CINDY BLACK, et al., OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS 15 Respondents. ECF No. 9 16 17 Petitioner Alphonso Ramon Clark seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 18 ECF No. 9. He alleges that after he was found not guilty of assault by reason of insanity, his due 19 process rights were violated during civil recommitment proceedings. Id. at 1-2. Respondents 20 argue that the petition should be denied because, at the time the petition was filed, petitioner was 21 no longer in custody based on the commitment order he challenges. ECF No. 30 at 4. They also 22 contend that, because petitioner was unconditionally released on June 2, 2022, any of his claims 23 regarding custody are moot. Id. at 4-5. These arguments are persuasive, and petitioner has not 24 filed a traverse challenging them. I therefore recommend that the petition be denied. 25 Background 26 In May 1999, petitioner was found not guilty of battering a correctional officer and of 27 battering a correctional officer by gassing. ECF No. 31-16 at 1. He was subsequently committed 28 to the Department of Mental Health for eight years and that commitment was extended several 1 times. ECF No. 30 at 2. On June 2, 2022, a jury found petitioner restored to sanity, and he was 2 discharged from custody unconditionally. ECF No. 31-17. 3 Discussion 4 I. Legal Standards 5 A federal court may grant habeas relief when a petitioner shows that his custody violates 6 federal law. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(a), (c)(3), 2254(a); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 374-75 7 (2000). Section 2254 of Title 28, as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty 8 Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), governs a state prisoner’s habeas petition. See Harrington v. Richter, 9 562 U.S. 86, 97 (2011). To decide a § 2254 petition, a federal court examines the decision of the 10 last state court that issued a reasoned opinion on petitioner’s habeas claims. See Wilson v. Sellers, 11 138 S. Ct. 1188, 1192 (2018); Van Lynn v. Farmon, 347 F.3d 735, 738 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Because, 12 here, neither the court of appeal nor the California Supreme Court issued a reasoned opinion on 13 the merits of this claim, we look to the trial court’s decision.”); McCormick v. Adams, 621 F.3d 14 970, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2010) (reviewing the decision of the court of appeal, which was last 15 reasoned decision of a state court); Gill v. Ayers, 342 F.3d 911, 917 n.5 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Because 16 the California Supreme Court denied review of Gill’s habeas petition without comment, we look 17 through the unexplained California Supreme Court decision to the last reasoned decision . . . as 18 the basis for the state court’s judgment.”) (internal quotations omitted). 19 Under AEDPA, a petitioner may obtain relief on federal habeas claims that have been 20 “adjudicated on the merits in state court proceedings” only if the state court’s adjudication 21 resulted in a decision (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly 22 established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” or (2) “based 23 on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court 24 proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). 25 II. Analysis 26 Petitioner’s unconditional release from custody moots his claims. Here, although 27 petitioner was released after he filed his initial petition, the unconditionality of that release 28 precludes further relief. “Once the convict’s sentence has expired, however, some concrete and 1 continuing injury other than the now-ended incarceration or parole—some ‘collateral 2 consequence’ of the conviction—must exist if the suit is to be maintained.” Spencer v. Kemna, 3 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). Petitioner, by declining to file a traverse, has failed to identify any such 4 collateral consequence and the petition is now moot. 5 And, even if that were not the case, respondent’s other argument regarding the order of 6 commitment is persuasive. The petition challenges the revocation of petitioner’s outpatient status 7 in 2018. ECF No. 9 at 4. At the time of that revocation, petitioner was committed under an order 8 that expired in November 2019. ECF No. 31-16 at 1. This case was initiated on October 28, 9 2021, and, at that time, petitioner was held in pre-commitment detention pending trial on the 10 state’s petition to again extend his commitment. ECF No. 30 at 4. Thus, even if petitioner’s due 11 process rights were violated during the 2018 revocation, he would not be entitled to any habeas 12 relief from this suit. And petitioner has not challenged this argument by way of a traverse. 13 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the amended petition, ECF No. 9, be DENIED. 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 15 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 16 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 17 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 18 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 19 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 20 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 21 appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 22 v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ May 16, 2024 q——— 26 JEREMY D,. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28