logo

For Recent News, Stories, and Other Information
Concerning SVP Civil Commitment Click on the Tabs Below.

Please note the links to the Index Pages are gone. We have attempted to make navigation and material location easier. The material that was formerly listed on separate Index Pages is now available by using the TABS on this page.

If you find this resource to be of value, please donate some money to help us defray the costs of keeping this information on the Internet.

     ABOUT US    -    CONTACT US

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
           - Benjamin Franklin

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
            - H.L. Mencken

"I am being held prisoner through civil commitment by the State of California, using its Department of Mental Health, for crimes that I might commit in the future by people who are actually committing crimes in the present.
            - Michael St.Martin

Civil Rights Man Image
Coalinga Mall Image
The Community Forum has been disbanded do to lack of interest and frequent spam attacks.

On Feb. 1, 2011, a new website was launched that will be dedicated to providing news from civil commitment centers around the US.

At this time, usable material has only been received from people in eleven States - CA, FL, IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, NJ, TX, WA and WI. More will be added as usable appropriate material is received.

  See hosprisoners.org

March 4, 2014, the California Fourth District Court of Appeals issued a peremptory writ in the first instance in order to avoid further delay in bringing this action to trial. In Gilbert v. Superior Court (People) E059673, the writ quashes the People's subpoena duces tecum (SDT) that sought virtually all of petitioner's hospital records, holding that the People are only entitled to documents that may be produced pursuant to section 6603(c)(1), which does not authorize disclosure of therapy records directly to the People but authorizes review of such records by the independent evaluators and grants People access to otherwise confidential treatment information only to the extent it is contained in the updated mental evaluation.

June 14, 2013: The California Department of State Hospitals, Medical Director (A), Katherine Warburton, D.O., issued a letter to "All DSH Clinitions" setting a time schedule for implementation of the DSM-5.

March 13, 2013: In Knight v. Ahlin, the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals today held, "We therefore reverse, remand, and instruct the district court to grant a conditional writ of habeas corpus. The writ shall require that Knight be tried within 90 days or be released and the SVPA petition dismissed. The writ shall also emphasize that no further continuances of the SVPA petition proceedings should be granted except for compelling and extraordinary cause.

Dec. 27, 2012: The Cal. 6th District Court of Appeals issued a decision in People v. Shazier, H035423, overturning his civil commitment based on prosecutorial misconduct. This is a published case where the prosecutor repeatedly made statements imflaming the passions of the jury, the defense objected, and the court repeatedly overrulled the objection.

Dec. 2012: The US DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics issued a Report on Violent Victimization Committed by Strangers, 1993-2010

Sept 7, 2012: The US District Court for the Eastern District of CA (Fresno Division) issued a 28 page MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying CSH Patients Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Motion asked for the court to issue a preliminary injunction against the planned CSH confiscation of all patient owned computers and gaming systems.

At page 23: "A. Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 96) is DENIED. In addition, all Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process and procedural due process claims based upon confiscation of personal computers and gaming devices that fit within the Regulation, contained within their Complaints or Amendment Complaints, are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)."

Sept. 2012: We just obtained the TRANSCRIPT of the Dr. Mihordin seminar from September 7-9, 2011, SVP Evaluation training seminar by Ronald J. Mihordin, M.D., J.D., M.S.P., Acting Clinical Director Evaluation Service, Sex Offender Commitment Program. This transcript goes with the Power Point Presentation originally posted on this website on February 8, 2012.

July 24, 2012: The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the trial court decision in People v. McKee, D059843.

Summary of the Good Lives Model.

July 9, 2012: CSH Canteen and Grill closed. After months of patient complaints that were ignored, staff complaints resulted in the Health Department closing the Canteen and Grill due to unsafe food handling and filthy conditions.

June 15, 2012: Macy v. Superior Court (People), No. H037138, was decided by the Sixth Appellate District which concluded that the Ronje remedy must be fine-tuned.

Mar. 29, 2012: Reilly v. Superior Court (People), No. G045118 and two companion cases, Boysel v. Superior Court (People), No. G045202 and Wright v. Superior Court (People), No. G045203, were decided by the Fourth Appellate District. In Reilly, the Court states, "The express language of the SVPA and the California Supreme Court‟s decision in People v. Superior Court (Ghilotti) (2002) 27 Cal.4th 888, 912-913 (Ghilotti) compel us to grant Reilly‟s writ petition." Both Wright and Boysel were denied without prejudice, as they had not yet been evaluated by a second set of independent evaluators.

Mar. 28, 2012: The California Supreme Court denied the petition for review in Davenport v. Superior Court. However, see Reilly v. Superior Court (People), No. G045118 decided on 2/29/2012, where the Fourth Appellate District stated "We respectfully must conclude our colleagues in Davenport misinterpreted the SVPA and Ronje in several important respects." (Reilly Slip Opinion, p. 24.)

Mar. 5, 2012: The California Supreme Court decided two consolidated cases, In re DAVID LUCAS, S181788, and People v. Superior Court (Sharkey), S182355. The combined cases deal with respondents having been held in CDCR custody beyond their scheduled release dates to allow for the completion of full SVP evaluations. Upholding the Appellate Court decision, the Supreme Court concluded the regulation relied on by the BPT is invalid, but that the Board’s reliance upon it was excusable as a good faith mistake of law.

The information listed in this Tabbed Panel is recently acquired or popular material. Please go to the TABS above to see if we have more information on these subjects.

Evaluator Invoices for years 2009, 2010, 2011.

DMH Public Records Request Number 11 -82, June 8, 2011. Request for Age, Race, and Gender statistics for evaluators.

A Public Records Request to the California Department of Mental Health produced a new Evaluator Panel Members List.This list shows who was active during the years 1999 through 2009.

A Public Records Request to the California Department of Mental Health produced the Evaluator Panel Member Earnings for 2008. This list includes only moneys received from the DMH, and does not include earnings and expenses paid by the various county districts attorney for trial testimony, etc.

A Public Records Request to the California Department of Mental Health produced Evaluation Statistics for each evaluator during 2008.These tell the percentages of positive and negative evaluations for each evaluator.

A Public Records Request to the California Department of Mental Health produced a List of Inactive Evaluators covering the period 1998 through 2009. From this list, one can see who was removed from the panel during this time period.

  • Public
    Informjation
    Act Info
  • CSH
    Training
    Material
  • Evaluator
    Handbooks

  • DMH
    Material

  • Patient
    Related
    Material
  • Public
    Announce-
    ments

Oct. 12, 2012: Dr. Kasdorf's Power Point Presentation.

Feb. 8, 2012: A PDF of the Power Point Presentation from the September 7-9, 2011, SVP Evaluation training seminar given by Ronald J. Mihordin, M.D., J.D., M.S.P., Acting Clinical Director Evaluation Service, Sex Offender Commitment Program

DMH Public Records Request Number 11 -82, June 8, 2011. Request for Age, Race, and Gender statistics for evaluators.

CSH Medical Staff Bylaws

CSH Administrative Directive AD-820 (Redacted) This is how it is provided by the DMH

CSH Administrative Directive AD-820 (Complete) The DMH must think the public is stupid and does not have access to their secret underground regulations.

DMH Psychological Rehabilitation Malls Manual

WRP Team Process Coalinga State Hospital training material.

The Enhancement Plan and CRIPA Coalinga State Hospital training material.

 

June 14, 2013: The California Department of State Hospitals, Medical Director (A), Katherine Warburton, D.O., issued a letter to "All DSH Clinitions" setting a time schedule for implementation of the DSM-5.

Feb. 8, 2012: A PDF of the Power Point Presentation from the September 7-9, 2011, SVP Evaluation training seminar given by Ronald J. Mihordin, M.D., J.D., M.S.P., Acting Clinical Director Evaluation Service, Sex Offender Commitment Program

Sex Offender Treatment Program Information, SOTP Development Committee 12/2011 Newsletter

July 2011: California SVP Census data from 1996 to 2011 Population, Race, Age, and Diagnosis statistics for each year. We also asked for the diagnosis to be broken down by race. The DMH denied having this information, however, we have obtained some of this information for the year 2011 from our spies. Diagnosis by ethnicity as of March 16, 2011.

California DMH Forensic Behavior Profile Guidelines for staff to document "current dangerousness."

DMH Letter opposing DeVries release

Governor Davis Letter opposing Devries release

Dr. Padilla DMH Memorandum on Recidivism (2006)

Cal DMH SVP Evaluator earnings for year 2007

January 2009 "Box Score" This is a summary of Sex Offender Commitment Program (SOCP) statistics.

Sept. 21, 2010: The California DMH posted on their website the announcement of new proposed emergency regulations. NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING, their FINDING OF EMERGENCY, and PROPOSED TEXT OF NEW REGULATIONS. On or about July 16, 2010, Chris Johnson with the law firm of Shook, Hardy & Bacon filed a petition with the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) challenging as underground regulations DMH's Level II Screening Guidelines (Guidelines). The Guidelines are contained in the structured screening instrument developed and updated by DMH as required by Welfare and Institutions Code Section 6601 (b). Further details are provided in the documents filed by the DMH.

PUBLIC NOTICE 20071206 from the Joint Commission on Accredation

 

  • CASOMB
    Recidivism
    Studies
  • Private
    Recidivism
    Studies
  • Alaska
    Recidivism
    Study
  • Iowa


  • Minnesota
    Recidivism
    Study
  • Michigan
    Recidivism
    Study
  • Texas
    SVP
    Recidivism
  • WA
    Recidivism
    Report
  • US DOJ
    Recidivism
    Study
  • Calif.
    Evaluator
    Statistics
  • Registered
    Sex Offenders
    by CA County
  • USDOJ
    Studies

  • PEW
    Reports on
    Incarceration
  • Misc
    Studies

  • California
    CDCR

California SVP Recidivism Statistics (2th Qtr. 2011) Prepared by Glen F. Green.

California SVP Recidivism Statistics (4th Qtr. 2010) Prepared by Glen F. Green.

California SVP Recidivism Statistics (3rd Qtr. 2010) Prepared by Glen F. Green.

California SVP Recidivism Statistics (7-18-2010) Prepared by Glen F. Green.

California SVP Recidivism Statistics (4-12-09) Prepared by Glen F. Green.

CAL SVPA Release Data Package (9/16/08): This is data compiled by individuals over the years, and contains a great deal more information than the official sources has been willing to release. This is by no means complete data due to the difficulty in obtaining such data.

 

October 2008: sex offender recidivism study out of Alaska shows a child molester recidivism rate of 2.5% and a total sex offender recidivism rate of 3.4%. These numbers correlate with several other recent studies which show sex offender recidivism rates to be much lower those believed by the general public.

Jan. 2011: The Iowa Sex Offender Research Council issued its Report to the Iowa General Assembly.

Jan. 2011: Minnesota Facility Study Report. This is the unedited MSOP report that has been in the news.

Recidivism of Minnesota Sex Offenders Minnesota Department of Corrections, Sex Offender Recidivism in Minnesota, April 2007

Michigan Statistics Michigan Department of Corrections (2008)

December 2010 Texas Biennial Report Regarding the Council on Sex Offender Treatment September 1, 2008 – August 31, 2010 . This report contains a great deal of information on the Texas program, including a recidivism statistic of zero for new sex offenses for Texas SVPs.

Check out the 2007 Milloy report for the Washington State Institute for Public Policy, where it was reported that of the 135 released sex offenders who had been recommended for civil commitment, none of the offenders ages 50 and over were convicted of new felony sex offenses during the six-year follow-up period.

Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released in 1994: USDOJ, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2003, NCJ 198281

Evaluation Statistics for each California evaluator during 2008. These tell the percentages of positive and negative evaluations for each evaluator.

Prisoners in 2007 USDOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics

Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons USDOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics

Sexually Assaulted Children USDOJ, Finkelhor Report (2008)

Feb. 15, 2012: Recidivism among sex offenders in Connecticut final report has been released. "The sexual recidivism rates for the 746 sex offenders released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates." "Of the 1,395 offenders who had been arrested on sex charges before 2005, 2.4% were sentenced to prison for new sex offenses within 5 years. This compares with a 1.9% rate among offenders who had a prior conviction for a sex crime, and a 1.7% rate for offenders who had served a prison sentence for a prior sex crime."

Stanford LR California State-County Partnerships

Stanford LR CALIFORNIA SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS: SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

 

Oct. 11, 2010: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation released its recidivism report entitled 2010 Adult Institutions Outcome Evaluation Report. The CDCR states "Flagged sex offenders have a recidivism rate that is lower than nonflagged felons."

Oct. 10, 2010: The Sex Offender Supervision and GPS Monitoring Task Force Report has been released by the CDCR.

 

 

  • Age
    Related

  • Doren


  • Fred
    Berlin

  • Other


  • DSM


  • SORNA


  • AK
    Justice
    Forum
  • State
    Info

  • Law
    and
    Policies

What can be done to stop predators Interview with Dr. Fred Berlin (2006)

CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE AND PREVENTION Interview with Dr. Fred Berlin (2004)

Restoring Trust Interview with Dr. Fred Berlin (1997)

 

Abracen Looman_2006

Alexander: The States Insatiable Need To Incarcerate Those Who Freighten It

AN END-GAME FOR SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATOR LAWS: AS-APPLIED INVALIDATION (Janus and Bolin, 2008)

Applied Research Forum: Porn and Sexual Violkence (Jensen 2004)

Assessing Sex Offenders Campbell 2006

Association for Treatment of Sexual Abusers: Code of Ethics

Civil Commitment Without Psychosis-Zander

Optimal (Fred Cutter, Ph.D.) A short essay from one of the Psychologists who opened Atascadero State Hospital in 1955, that nicely sums up some major issues with the treatment program at CSH and proposes a solution.

Cutter: Patient Led Discussion Groups in State Hospitals This is an old paper whose idea may be coming around again.

Daubert and expert predictions

Diagnosis of Pedophilia: Firestone, et al (2005)

“DON’T THINK OF A PREDATOR” – CHANGING FRAMES FOR BETTER SEXUAL VIOLENCE PREVENTION (Janus, 2007)

Summary of the Good Lives Model. Dr. Jay Trenhaile

Good People Do Bad Things

Harris and Tough Actuarial Risk with IDSO

Is Pedophilia Biological

Kaplan Sadock CTP Paraphilias

Lanyon psych assessment procedures sex offending

Leitenberg and Henning (1995) Sexual Fantasy OCRed-1

Levinson Reliability Study (2004)

Nunes et al (2)

PCL SVP 07

POOR DIAGNOSTIC RELIABILITY: Wollert, et al (2008)

Precision of actuarial risk assessment instruments Evaluating the ‘margins of error’ of group v. individual predictions of violence (2007): STEPHEN D. HART, CHRISTINE MICHIE and DAVID J. COOKE

Query re MSI II response

June 2011: THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA SCHOOL OF LAW issued Rethinking the Indefinite Detention of Sex Offenders by Fredrick E. Vars. This paper, a must read for anyone challenging Static 99, is to also be published in the forthcoming, Volume 44 of the Connecticut Law Review.

Recidivism Of Pedophiles Firestone 2005

Selling Our Souls to the Devil (2): Albee

Sexual Aggression Adult and Child

Seto Pornography And Diagnosis 2006

Static and Dynamic Patient Characteristics_Phiplipse et al 2006

svp evaluations Miler Amenta Conroy 2005

What Works In Prison Sex Treatment

 

  • Hanson
  • Static 99
  • RRASOR
  • Helmus
  • Misc.

Oct. 7, 2009: A new Static-99 Coding Form was released this week. Static-99R Coding Form

Static-99 - Scoring Rules for Special Cases (Last updated: 7/23/2009 )

Dr. R. Karl Hanson released a prediction paper on the Static-2002 on February 20, 2009.

A Power Point Presentation (Harris, Helmus, Hanson, Thornton) was provided by Leslie Helmus and Karl Hanson at the annual ATSA conference on October 23, 2008.  As the slides show, in many cases the Static-99 overpredicts by an enormous margin. The significance of this data cannot be overstated.  The evaluators have been using an actuarial tool that is being questioned by its own creator. A PDF version of this is now available, along with additional Static 99 information. See the Professional Reports Index page under Hanson.

Sept. 23, 2010: A paper titled Alice In Actuarial Land: Through the Looking Glass of Changing Static-99 Norms was recently published. This link will take you to another website where we found a copy of this paper. The paper is extremely critical of the Static 99, and discusses the numerous flaws.

Power Point PresentationPresented at ATSA Conference October 23, 2008 (Harris, Helmus, Hanson, Thornton)

PDF Version of Harris, Helmus, Hanson, Thornton ATSA presentation 10/23/08

Hanson Morton Harris 2003

Hanson EMail On Mossman

STATIC-99 Coding Rules Revised - 2003: Andrew Harris, Amy Phenix, R. Karl Hanson, & David Thornton

Static-99 FAQ

Static-99 Recidivism Tables: October, 2008

Tab 05 Static Scoring Guide 010628_Hanson

Sept. 23, 2010: A paper titled Alice In Actuarial Land: Through the Looking Glass of Changing Static-99 Norms was recently published. This link will take you to another website where we found a copy of this paper. The paper is extremely critical of the Static 99, and discusses the numerous flaws.

 

 

  • California
    Department
    of Justice
  • California
    State
    Auditor
  • Calif.
    SOMB

  • Calif.
    CDCR

  • US
    Department
    of Justice
  • USDOJ
    SORNA

  • Canada


  • Indiana


  • Vermont


  • Minnesota


  • IOWA


July 12, 2011: The California State Auditor's report on the Sex Offender Commitment Program (SOCP) July 2011 Report 2010-116 has been released.

Jan 2010: The 455 page Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-4) report to Congress has been released by the US Department of Health and Human Services. This new study reports the incidence of child sexual abuse is down 38% since the previous study done in 1993.

California Department of Justice: Sexual Predator Program 2005-2006 Report

California Department of Justice: Recidivism of Paroled Sex Offenders (Draft June2008)

California Depatrtment of Justice: CALSOMBS Spring 2008

California State Auditor: Sex Offender Placement (2007-115)

California State Auditor: Parolees (2008-104)

California State Auditor: DMH Psychologists (2003-114)

California Sex Offender Management Board Recommendations Report January 2010

California Sex Offender Management Board PROGRESS REPORT January 2009

California Sex Offender Management Board Adam Walsh Act Statement of Position

California Sex Offender Management Board Homelessness Among Registered Sex Offenders In California, The Numbers, The Risks and the Response (Dec. 2008)

California Sex Offender Management Board Letter and Report to CDCR on GPS Use

California Sex Offender Management Board 5 Year Recidivism Study with Graph

California Sex Offender Management Board 10 Year Recidivism Study with Graph

Oct. 11, 2010: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation released its recidivism report entitled 2010 Adult Institutions Outcome Evaluation Report. The CDCR states "Flagged sex offenders have a recidivism rate that is lower than nonflagged felons."

Oct. 10, 2010: The Sex Offender Supervision and GPS Monitoring Task Force Report has been released by the CDCR.

Dec. 2012: The US DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics issued a Report on Violent Victimization Committed by Strangers, 1993-2010

United States Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General: Treatment of September 11 Alien Detainees. (Note: this is a huge 13MB file.)

United States Department of Justice: Finkelhor Report 2008: Sexually Assaulted Children:National Estimates and Characteristics

United States Department of Justice Report: Recidivism of sex offenders released in 1994

United States Department of Justice: Prison Sexual Victimization (2007)

United States Department of Justice: Prisoners in 2007

Correctional Services of Canada: Sex Offender Research (Nunes, July 2008)

Indiana: Indiana Recidivism Rate ReportOn March 10,2009, the Indiana Department of Corrections states, "The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%."

Jan. 2011: Minnesota Facility Study Report. This is the unedited MSOP report that has been in the news.

Minnesota Department of Corrections: Sex Offender Recidivism in Minnesota (April 2007)

 

A Public Records Request to the California DOJ produced a list of the number of registered sex offenders by county.

The Indiana Supreme Court that declares the Indiana registration law violates ex post facto provisions of the Indiana Constitution when applied to those convicted prior to its enactment date (June 30, 1994). See Wallace v. State of Indiana.

A Public Records Request to the California Department of Mental Health produced a copy of the Patients' Rights Advocacy Contract for the period 2008 through 2011.

The Joint Commission on Accredation has issued PUBLIC NOTICE 20071206 regarding unannounced accredation surveys of California State Hospitals which are done every three years. Those persons with relevant information regarding abuses in California State Hospitals, and who are interested in being interviewed by the Joint Commission, should read or download the Public Notice and make the contact arrangements detailed therein. Since these are unannounced visits, interview arrangements must be made well in advance of the actual survey.

  • Public
    Informjation
    Act Info
  • Misc
    Legal
    Info
  • SARATSO


  • Adam Walsh
    Law
    Decisions
  • Calif
    SVPA
    Decisions
  • SO
    Registration
    Decisions
  • Federal
    SVP
    Decisions
  • Misc
    Decisions

  • CDCR
    Decisions

  • Conditions
    of
    Confinement
  • Hydrick
    v.
    Hunter
  • Legal
    News

June 2011: THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA SCHOOL OF LAW issued Rethinking the Indefinite Detention of Sex Offenders by Fredrick E. Vars. This paper, a must read for anyone challenging Static 99, is to also be published in the forthcoming, Volume 44 of the Connecticut Law Review.

List of the number of registered sex offenders by county obtained from the CA DOJ

Evaluator Panel Members List This list shows who was active during the years 1999 through 2009.

Evaluator Panel Member Earnings for 2008 This list includes only moneys received from the DMH, and does not include earnings and expenses paid by the various county districts attorney for trial testimony, etc.

Evaluator Panel Members Earnings for 2007

Evaluation Statistics for each evaluator during 2008. These tell the percentages of positive and negative evaluations for each evaluator.

List of Inactive Evaluators covering the period 1998 through 2009. From this list, one can see who was removed from the panel during this time period.

Patients' Rights Advocacy Contract for the period 2008 through 2011.

Public Information Act Request to California DMH Number 09-032

 

No Easy Answers article from Human Rights Watch This article contains a summary of sex offender laws.

Preparation and Testimony as an Expert in Sexually Violent Predator Trials. On January 13, 2009, San Bernardino County Deputy District Attorney Camelia Hermine Mesrobian gave a presentation for Clinical Staff at Coalinga State Hospital.

Indiana Recidivism Rate Report On March 10,2009, the Indiana Department of Corrections states, "The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%."

 

See also SORNA on the Government Reports TAB

Jan. 23, 2012: The US Supreme Court decides Reynolds v. U.S., 10-6549, holding in a challenge to provisions of the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, "The Act does not require pre-Act offenders to register before theAttorney General validly specifies that the Act’s registration provisions apply to them."

June 1, 2010: The US Supreme Court decided CARR v. US, No. 08-1301. Congress passed the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) in 2006. Among its provisions, the law bars sex offenders from moving across state lines without registering or updating their registrations. Today the Supreme Court refused to apply the Act retroactively in a 6 to 3 majority decision written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissent that was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

On May 13, 2009, the 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals upheld the civil commitment portion of the Adam Walsh Act in United States v. Tom. The Circuits aer now split on this issue.

Abregana: First test in Hawaii of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act

United States v. Comstock (4th Cir. 2009): On January 8, 2009, the 4th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals declared the civil commitment portion of the Adam Walsh Act to be unconstitutional. The decision holds that Congress lacked constitutional authority to enact the provision. The decision deals only with the civil commitment portion of the Adam Walsh Act.September 2007 District Court Order. On February 23, 2009, the Department of Justice asked the full 4th Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear the case.

 

March 13, 2013: In Knight v. Ahlin, the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals today held, "We therefore reverse, remand, and instruct the district court to grant a conditional writ of habeas corpus. The writ shall require that Knight be tried within 90 days or be released and the SVPA petition dismissed. The writ shall also emphasize that no further continuances of the SVPA petition proceedings should be granted except for compelling and extraordinary cause.

Dec. 27, 2012: The Cal. 6th District Court of Appeals issued a decision in People v. Shazier, H035423, overturning his civil commitment based on prosecutorial misconduct. This is a published case where the prosecutor repeatedly made statements imflaming the passions of the jury, the defense objected, and the court repeatedly overrulled the objection.

Mar. 29, 2012: Reilly v. Superior Court (People), No. G045118 and two companion cases, Boysel v. Superior Court (People), No. G045202 and Wright v. Superior Court (People), No. G045203, were decided by the Fourth Appellate District. In Reilly, the Court states, "The express language of the SVPA and the California Supreme Court‟s decision in People v. Superior Court (Ghilotti) (2002) 27 Cal.4th 888, 912-913 (Ghilotti) compel us to grant Reilly‟s writ petition." Both Wright and Boysel were denied without prejudice, as they had not yet been evaluated by a second set of independent evaluators.

Mar. 28, 2012: The California Supreme Court denied the petition for review in Davenport v. Superior Court. However, see Reilly v. Superior Court (People), No. G045118 decided on 2/29/2012, where the Fourth Appellate District stated "We respectfully must conclude our colleagues in Davenport misinterpreted the SVPA and Ronje in several important respects." (Reilly Slip Opinion, p. 24.)

Jan. 5, 2012: Davenport v. Superior Court. A bad decision for SVPA detainees who had Probable Cause found based on an invalid Protocol, and where new evaluations using a valid Protocol resulted in two splits of opinion. The Appellate Court affirmed the Superior Court's denial of a motion to dismiss the SVP petition, and instead ordering a new Probable Cause Hearing based on Ronje. Relying on Gray v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 322, the court held that while two concurring evaluations were required to find Probable Cause, the SVPA only requires one (or more) evaluators to testify at trial.

Aug. 30, 2011: In , People v. Landau, (ordered published 9/13/2011) the CA 4th Appellate District, Division 3, issued a decision dealing with annual reviews under WIC 6605 and 6608. In this case, the Evaluator found Landau to nor longer be dangerous and recommended a less restrictive environment. The CSH Medical Director disagreed and refused to file a report to the court. Landau then filed a petition pursuant to sections 6605/6608. The superior court found the petition unauthorized under 6605 and to be frivolous under 6608. The Appellate Court reversed and remanded for proceedings under 6605.

April 25, 2011: A San Diego Superior Court Judge ruled today in the McKee Case which had been remanded from the California Supreme Court. Judge Michael Wellington held that a provision of Jessica’s Law that allows sexually violent predators to be confined in a state hospital indefinitely after they've completed their prison terms does not violate the offenders’ constitutional rights. See the McKee hearing written decision here. See also the San Diego Tribune article which can be found at this link.

May 24, 2010: The Supreme Court of California decided PEOPLE v. CASTILLO, Case: S171163, "We reverse the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeal, with directions to reinstate the judgment of the trial court committing Castillo to a two-year term.  In any future SVP proceeding, Castillo  pursuant to the stipulation, and under section 6604, as amended by Senate Bill No. 1128 and Proposition 83   will be subject to commitment for an indeterminate term."

Jan. 28, 2010: Today, the Cal. Supreme Court released the long awaited decision in People v. McKee, S162823. "The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the cause is remanded with directions to remand to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion."

The decision is 71 pages long, and only one issue survived: Equal Protection. That issue has been remanded for further proceedings. The challenge made under equal protection is that the SVPA is the only civil commitment scheme in California that has an indeterminate commitment period (in other words "life"), and the Cal. Supreme Court found merit in this argument.

Nov. 19, 2009: The California 4th Appellate District, in a Published Decision, In re Ronje, G041373, upheld 2008 OAL Determination #19 which declared the 2007 Evaluator Handbook to be an Underground Regulation. The appellate court has now determined the appropriate remedy for using an underground regulation. This decision now tells those  facing SVP commitment what they need to do get those evaluations thrown out. But this must be done pre-trial, or else one must show actual prejudice which is difficult.

Bourquez v. Superior Court (People) (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1275

Cal S148949 Right to Testify at Civil Commitment Trial

In re Franklin: Following Order to Show Cause from the Cal. Supreme Court, returnable to Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, Petition for SVP commitment ordered dismissed with prejudice following reversal of underlying felony conviction.

Ardell Moore v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County The 2nd Appellate District, Division 3, issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the trial court to conduct a hearing into Moore‟s competence to stand trial as an alleged sexually violent predator. "In the event the trial court determines Moore is not presently competent to stand trial, the court shall order Moore held in a state hospital for the care and treatment of the mentally disordered until such time as he is restored to competence."

Paul George (A120536) Outpatient Housing Issue

People v. Boyle (2008) [ Cal.App.]

People v. Boyle 2 (2008) [ Cal.App.]

People v. Dean (E041513) (Cal.App. 2008) Deals with the number of expert witnesses.

People v. Felix (Cal.App. 12/16/08) (A115717) Holds that a diagnosis of "Parafilia NOS (Not Otherwise Specified)" is sufficient for SVPA commitment.

Lee v. Superior Court , No. G041511 On Sept. 21, 2009, the Fourth Appellate District of California issued a Writ of Mandate in a combination of five cases, where the Dsitrict Attorney in SVPA commitment cases issued subpoenas seeking a wide range of information including medical and psychological records, trust account information, and visitor logs. The Court held the District Attorney's subpoenas to be ineffective, and that only that information authorized under section WIC 6603, subdivision (c) may be obtained through proper application and attached affidavit. This case discusses Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. § 1320d et seq.) (HIPAA) restrictions.

People v. McKee (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1517

People v. Medina (certified for partial publication) discusses several issues surrounding the Evaluator Handbook being an underground regulation. This case is must reading for anyone making this challenge.

People v. Taylor [and four other cases], Division 2 of the 4th Appellate District held that an SVPA commitment could not be converted to a indeterminate term without taking the respondent(s) to trial.

People v. Sokolsky: March 23, 2010: The California Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, issued a decision inholding 1) that a defendant in an SVPA proceeding does not have a constitutional right to self representation on appeal, and 2) that the agreements used in Los Angeles County that stipulated a two year commitment for cases already in process when Prop. 83 was passed to be illegal, and modified Sokolsky's commitment to indeterminate. It should be noted that this issue is presently before the California Supreme Court in People v. Castillo (S171163), where oral arguments are scheduled to be argued Wednesday, April 7, 2010, at 9:00 a.m., in Los Angeles.

Wilson v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County: On March 22, 2010, the California Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, issued a Writ of Mandate following a due process challenge. The appellate court held, "Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing respondent Los Angeles County Superior Court to suspend the SVPA commitment proceedings now pending against Wilson; to conduct a hearing to determine his ability to understand the nature of the proceedings and to rationally assist his counsel in the conduct of a defense; if Wilson is not now competent, to order Wilson to remain in appropriate custody pending restoration of his competency; and to conduct further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion."

 

Jan. 23, 2012: The US Supreme Court decides Reynolds v. U.S., 10-6549, holding in a challenge to provisions of the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, "The Act does not require pre-Act offenders to register before theAttorney General validly specifies that the Act’s registration provisions apply to them."

SD v. ZB (2008 SD 108): South Dakota Supreme Court declares sex offender registry violates Equal Protection by treating juvenile offenders more harshly than adult offenders.

See Wallace v. State of Indiana. The Indiana Supreme Court that declares the Indiana registration law violates ex post facto provisions of the Indiana Constitution when applied to those convicted prior to its enactment date (June 30, 1994).

G.H. v. TOWNSHIP OF GALLOWAY (5/7/09) The New Jersey Supreme Court nullifies local ordanances on sex offender housing restrictions.

 

March 13, 2013: In Knight v. Ahlin, the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals today held, "We therefore reverse, remand, and instruct the district court to grant a conditional writ of habeas corpus. The writ shall require that Knight be tried within 90 days or be released and the SVPA petition dismissed. The writ shall also emphasize that no further continuances of the SVPA petition proceedings should be granted except for compelling and extraordinary cause.

June 30, 2010: The 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals issued a decision in Seaton v. Mayberg. Seaton claimed that defendants violated his constitutional right to privacy by allowing psychologists to look at his prison medical records and to communicate their opinions and supporting data to the district attorney's office for use in Seaton's civil commitment proceedings. The District Court's dismissal of Seaton's lawsuit is affirmed, holding that prisoners do not have a constitutionally protected expectation of privacy in prison treatment records when the state has a legitimate penological interest in access to them. The decision also holds that even after Seaton was no longer a prisoner, Seaton still had no constitutionally protected expectation of privacy under the circumstances.

June 1, 2010: The US Supreme Court decided CARR v. US, No. 08-1301. Congress passed the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) in 2006. Among its provisions, the law bars sex offenders from moving across state lines without registering or updating their registrations. Today the Supreme Court refused to apply the Act retroactively in a 6 to 3 majority decision written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissent that was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

May 17, 2010: The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the government's authority to hold sexually dangerous criminals after their release from prison. In a 7-2 DECISION in UNITED STATES v. COMSTOCK ET AL., the Court said the government could authorize courts to civilly commit such persons under the Constitution's necessary and proper clause. Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote the majority opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion that was partially joined by Justice Antonin Scalia.

Scott v. Keller (2008): Interesting US District Court Order from Senior Judge Lawrence Karlton dealing with dealing with SVPA evaluations not being completed 6 months prior to CDC release date.

Sololsky vs. Rostron, et al. (2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83171)

 

Kennedy v. Louisiana (Modified Oct. 2008): This is the death penalty for child molesters case.

Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles (CA4 2008): Judges Compensation

Humphries (9th Cir. (2008) No. 05-56467): California’s Child Abuse Central Index (“the CACI”), an Internet available database of known or suspected child abusers, violates Due Process.

Apollo v. Gyaami, No. A118431 California right of access to the courts for indigent prisoners

Proposition 83 Amicus Brief

 

May 23, 2011: The US Supreme Court issued its decision in Plata v. Brown, Case No. 09–1233, the California prison overcrowding case. In a 5 to 4 decision written by Justice Kennedy the State lost on all issues as the Supreme Court upheld the Three Judge decision.

Nov. 30, 2010: The US Supreme Court held oral arguments in Plata v. Schwarzenegger, the California prison overcrowding case. Here is the Plata_Oral_arguments_09-1233.pdf transcript.

Sabatasso v. Superior Ct. of Orange County (Cate)(CA4-2008): Writ of Mandate concerning CDC "Gate Money."

Plata v. Schwarzenegger Prison health care appeal

 

  • Misc.
  • Tab 2

Seealso Hydrick v. Hunter TAB

Sept 7, 2012: The US District Court for the Eastern District of CA (Fresno Division) issued a 28 page MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying CSH Patients Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Motion asked for the court to issue a preliminary injunction against the planned CSH confiscation of all patient owned computers and gaming systems.

At page 23: "A. Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 96) is DENIED. In addition, all Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process and procedural due process claims based upon confiscation of personal computers and gaming devices that fit within the Regulation, contained within their Complaints or Amendment Complaints, are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)."

On May 22, 2009, the Alaska Supreme Court granted mental patients in the state civil rights in the case WILLIAM S. BIGLEY v. ALASKA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, Alaska Supreme Court No. S-13116. This case sets some stringent due process protections before a patient may be involuntarily medicated.

Howard Visiting Rights Lawsuit: Federal Magistrate Judge slams Atascadero State Hospital Findings and recommendations

 

 

 

  • Some
    History

  • 2007 9th
    Circuit
    Decision
  • Iqbal
    v.
    Hasty
  • Ashcroft
    v.
    Iqbal

Jan. 12, 2012: on remand from the US Supreme Court in a case, Iqbal, decided on May 18, 2009, the 9th Cir. decision in Hydrick v. Hunter was ordered to be reconsidered in light of Iqbal. After reconsideration, the 9th Circuit issued its latest decision in Hydrick v. Hunter on Jan 12, 2012. This latest decision now grants qualified immunity to all defendants on money damages, but does allow plaintiffs to proceed with their claims for injunctive and declaratory relief.

On May 26, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court issued the following order:

"07-958 HUNTER, MELVIN E., ET AL. V. HYDRICK, JAMES A., ET AL. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. (2009)."

This is the California civil detainees conditions of confinement case of Hydrick v. Hunter filed against Atascadero State Hospital and DMH Officials.

On May 18, 2009, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, No. 07–1015. This is the case which the California civil detainees conditions of confinement case of Hydrick v. Hunter has been trailed behind. Although the US Supreme Court had taken no action on the Hydrick case at the time of this posting, it is expected the court will remand the Hydrick case back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of the Iqbal decision. See also Comments on Iqbal Decision.

Approximately ten years ago, civil detainees at Atascadero State Hospital filed a Class Action lawsuit against employees and officials of the California DMH. These civil detainees are now located at Coalinga State Hospital. This lawsuit challenges conditions of confinement, and has been stalled by an endless chain of appeals filed by the California Attorney General. The decision from Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in Hydrick v. Hunter is presently before the United States Supreme Court. Because conditions of confinement cases of persons being held by states under mental health laws are legally similar to civil detainees being held as political prisoners under anti-terrorists laws, no action has been taken by the US Supreme Court on the Hydrick case pending the resolution the outcome of a case involving a person detained following the 911 event in New York CIty. In the case of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, Docket Number 07-1015, oral arguments were held before the US Supreme Court on on Wednesday, December 10, 2008.

 

On May 18, 2009, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, No. 07–1015. This is the case which the California civil detainees conditions of confinement case of Hydrick v. Hunter has been trailed behind. Although the US Supreme Court had taken no action on the Hydrick case at the time of this posting, it is expected the court will remand the Hydrick case back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of the Iqbal decision. See also Comments on Iqbal Decision by Tom Watson.

Oral Arguments for Ashcroft v. Iqbal, Docket Number 07-1015, were held on Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Questions presented to the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal

Iqbal Brief: Petitioner

Iqbal Brief: Responents

Iqbal Brief: Hasty

Iqbal Brief: Barr Amicus Brief

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE JAPANESE AMERICAN CITIZENS LEAGUE, PAKISTANI AMERICAN PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, SIKH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, NATIONAL KOREAN AMERICAN SERVICE & EDUCATION CONSORTIUM, AND MUSLIM ADVOCATES IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE, The Sikh Coalition, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Discrimination and National Security Initiative, Muslim Public Affairs Council, Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Sikh Council on Religion and Education, South Asian Americans Leading Together and United Sikhs in SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT IQUBAL

BRIEF FOR THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING RESPONDENT

BRIEF OF NATIONAL CIVIL RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS

BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE IBRAHIM TURKMEN, ASIF-UR-REHMAN SAFFI, YASSER EBRAHIM, HANY IBRAHIM, SHAKIR BALOCH, AKHIL SACHDEVA AND ASHRAF IBRAHIM IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS

BRIEF OF PROFESSORS OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND FEDERAL PRACTICE AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS

 

Nov. 30, 2010: The US Supreme Court held oral arguments in Plata v. Schwarzenegger, the California prison overcrowding case. Here is the Plata_Oral_arguments_09-1233.pdf transcript.

Sept. 2, 2010: The WA Supreme Ct., en banc, has declared part of the Washington State SVP recommitment scheme to violate substantive due process. The opinion downloads in three parts, the opinion, the concurrence and the dissent.

June 30, 2010: The 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals issued a decision in Seaton v. Mayberg. Seaton claimed that defendants violated his constitutional right to privacy by allowing psychologists to look at his prison medical records and to communicate their opinions and supporting data to the district attorney's office for use in Seaton's civil commitment proceedings. The District Court's dismissal of Seaton's lawsuit is affirmed, holding that prisoners do not have a constitutionally protected expectation of privacy in prison treatment records when the state has a legitimate penological interest in access to them. The decision also holds that even after Seaton was no longer a prisoner, Seaton still had no constitutionally protected expectation of privacy under the circumstances.

June 17, 2010: The California Supreme Court granded review in PEOPLE v. S.C. (SHARKEY), Case Number S182355, and LUCAS (DAVID) ON H.C., Case Number S181788 . Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for peremptory writ of mandate (Sharkey), and denied a petition for writ of habeas corpus (Lucas). Lucas and Sharkey present the following issues: (1) What constitutes "good cause" for the imposition of a 45-day hold and extension of a scheduled parole date under Welfare and Institutions Code section 6601.3 to permit evaluation of the defendant under the Sexually Violent Predator Act? (2) Is California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 2600.1, subdivision (d), which defines the term "good cause" as used in section 6601.3 as "some evidence" that the inmate has a prior qualifying conviction and is likely to engage in predatory criminal behavior, a valid regulation? (3) Does the "good faith mistake of law or fact" exception apply in these cases?

June 1, 2010: The US Supreme Court decided CARR v. US, No. 08-1301. Congress passed the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) in 2006. Among its provisions, the law bars sex offenders from moving across state lines without registering or updating their registrations. Today the Supreme Court refused to apply the Act retroactively in a 6 to 3 majority decision written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissent that was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

May 24, 2010: The Supreme Court of California decided PEOPLE v. CASTILLO, Case: S171163, "We reverse the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeal, with directions to reinstate the judgment of the trial court committing Castillo to a two-year term.  In any future SVP proceeding, Castillo  pursuant to the stipulation, and under section 6604, as amended by Senate Bill No. 1128 and Proposition 83   will be subject to commitment for an indeterminate term."

May 20, 2010: The California Supreme Court took the following action in PEOPLE v. GARCIA, Case No. S166682: "The above-entitled matter is transferred to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, with directions to vacate its decision and to reconsider the cause in light of People v. McKee (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1172. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.528(d).) In order to avoid an unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings, the court is additionally directed to suspend further proceedings pending finality of the proceedings on remand in McKee (see McKee, supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 1208-1210), including any proceeding in the Superior Court of San Diego County in which McKee may be consolidated with related matters. "Finality of the proceedings" shall include the finality of any subsequent appeal and any proceedings in this court. Votes: George, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Moreno, and Corrigan, JJ."

May 17, 2010: The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the government's authority to hold sexually dangerous criminals after their release from prison. In a 7-2 DECISION in UNITED STATES v. COMSTOCK ET AL., the Court said the government could authorize courts to civilly commit such persons under the Constitution's necessary and proper clause. Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote the majority opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion that was partially joined by Justice Antonin Scalia.

April 30, 2010: The Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals has upheld the District Court decision in Plata_v_Schwarzenegger, No.09-15864. This is from California's challenge to the appointment of a Receiver to administer and improve prisoner health care in the Plata and Coleman cases.

March 23, 2010: The California Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, issued a decision in People v. Sokolsky holding 1) that a defendant in an SVPA proceeding does not have a constitutional right to self representation on appeal, and 2) that the agreements used in Los Angeles County that stipulated a two year commitment for cases already in process when Prop. 83 was passed to be illegal, and modified Sokolsky's commitment to indeterminate. It should be noted that this issue is presently before the California Supreme Court in People v. Castillo (S171163), where oral arguments are scheduled to be argued Wednesday, April 7, 2010, at 9:00 a.m., in Los Angeles.

March 22, 2010: The California Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, issued a Writ of Mandate in Wilson v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Following a due process challenge, the appellate court held, "Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing respondent Los Angeles County Superior Court to suspend the SVPA commitment proceedings now pending against Wilson; to conduct a hearing to determine his ability to understand the nature of the proceedings and to rationally assist his counsel in the conduct of a defense; if Wilson is not now competent, to order Wilson to remain in appropriate custody pending restoration of his competency; and to conduct further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion."

Jan. 28, 2010: Today, the Cal. Supreme Court released the long awaited decision in People v. McKee, S162823. "The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the cause is remanded with directions to remand to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion."

The decision is 71 pages long, and only one issue survived: Equal Protection. That issue has been remanded for further proceedings. The challenge made under equal protection is that the SVPA is the only civil commitment scheme in California that has an indeterminate commitment period (in other words "life"), and the Cal. Supreme Court found merit in this argument.

In Ardell Moore v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, the 2nd Appellate District, Division 3, issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the trial court to conduct a hearing into Moore‟s competence to stand trial as an alleged sexually violent predator. "In the event the trial court determines Moore is not presently competent to stand trial, the court shall order Moore held in a state hospital for the care and treatment of the mentally disordered until such time as he is restored to competence."

In the case of People v. Taylor [and four other cases], the Division 2 of the 4th Appellate District held that an SVPA commitment could not be converted to a indeterminate term without taking the respondent(s) to trial.

On May 22, 2009, the Alaska Supreme Court granted mental patients in the state civil rights in the case WILLIAM S. BIGLEY v. ALASKA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, Alaska Supreme Court No. S-13116. This case sets some stringent due process protections before a patient may be involuntarily medicated.

On May 13, 2009, the 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals upheld the civil commitment portion of the Adam Walsh Act in United States v. Tom. The Circuits aer now split on this issue.

Three recent California appellate decisions deal with the Evaluator Handbook being an underground regulation. It appears that in order to preserve this issue for appeal, one should file a pretrial motion, probably a Ghilotti Motion, alleging the actual harm from the procedures contained in the underground regulation. People v. Castillo (certified for partial publication) and People v. McConnell (unpublished). On February 25, 2009, the First District Court of Appeals issued a decision in People v. Medina (certified for partial publication) which discusses several issues surrounding the Evaluator Handbook being an underground regulation. This case is must reading for anyone making this challenge.

On January 8, 2009, the 4th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in United States v. Comstock declared the civil commitment portion of the Adam Walsh Act to be unconstitutional. The decision holds that Congress lacked constitutional authority to enact the provision. The decision deals only with the civil commitment portion of the Adam Walsh Act.

The decision in the appeal to the 9th Circuit by the California Attorney General in the Plata v. Schwarzenegger case was decided on March 25, 2009. The State's appeal was dismissed and its request for mandamus was denied. The appeal was dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction by the appellate court because the issue was not a final judgment. The application for the writ of mandamus was denied because the conditions for issuance were not met. In the discussion, the court discusses the fact that the State did not appeal the original consent decree and the Order appointing the Receiver. This quote says a lot:
 "Certainly the original consent of the State to the proceedings may affect or even negate its claim
of Eleventh Amendment immunity, and its consent equally may affect the claim of violation of the PLRA."

 

 

  • Evaluator
    Handbook
    Motions
  • Opposition
    to DeVries
    Release
  • Padilla DMH
    Recidivism
    Memoeandum
  • Misc. Opinion
    Articles and
    Papers

San Bernardino PD redacted SVP Motion to Dismiss: Jeff Lowry's Motion to Dismiss based on the Evaluators' Handbook being declared an underground regulation

Gentile SVP Motion to Mismiss: Motion to Dismiss based on the Evaluators' Handbook (Protocol) being declared an underground regulation

Howard SVP Motion to Dismiss: Motion to Dismiss based on the Evaluators' Handbook (Protocol) being declared an underground regulation

Kirk Release Argument: Argument portion based on Protocol being declared an underground regulation

SEPARATE FINDING OF A "SERIOUS AND WELL FOUNDED RISK" Article by Tom Watson (2003)

SVP RESPONDENT NEEDS AT LEAST TWO EXPERT WITNESSES by: Tom Watson (2006) An SVP Respondent is entitled to Parity with the Prosecution.

Comments on November 2003 Department of Justice, BJS, Report:, "Recidivism of Sex Offeners Released from Prison in 1994", by Tom Watson - 2004

HANSON STUDY SHOWS TREATMENT HAS LITTLE EFFECT Author Unknown (circa 2007) This article deals with one of the main reasons approximately 80% of those committed under the California SVPA refuse treatment.

Sex offenders' behavior hard to explain (2009)

Are You Cured? By Lester Welch, Ph.D. (2007)

 

Nov. 19, 2009: The California 4th Appellate District, in a Published Decision, In re Ronje, G041373, upheld 2008 OAL Determination #19 which declared the 2007 Evaluator Handbook to be an Underground Regulation. The appellate court has now determined the appropriate remedy for using an underground regulation. This decision now tells those  facing SVP commitment what they need to do get those evaluations thrown out. But this must be done pre-trial, or else one must show actual prejudice which is difficult.

Notwithstanding a determination by the California Office of Administrative Law that the Clinical Evaluator Handbook and Standardized Assessment Protocol is an underground regulation in 2008 OAL Determination No. 19, August 15, 2008, the California Department of Mental Health issued its latest edition of the Clinical Evaluator Handbood and Standardized Assessment Protocol: November 2008. The DMH has again issued this Handbook, which it is requiring evaluators follow, but has failed and refused to legally promulgate it pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act.

The California Department of Mental Health releases yet another Protocol on February 11, 2009: STANDARDIZED ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL FOR SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATOR EVALUATIONS

On January 20, 2009, Michael St.Martin sent a Petition to the Office of Administrative Law challenging the revision of the Clinical Evaluator Handbook and Standardized Assessment Protocol: November 2008. On February 18, 2009, the California Department of Mental Health certified to the California Secretary of State that it would not use the November 2008 revision of the Evaluator Handbook. The OAL then suspended action on the pending Petition.

On January 22, 2009, the California Department of Mental Health filed for emergency regulatory action with the Office of Administrative Law. This action followed the January 6, 2009, action where the Superior Court of the County of Sacramento stayed the proceedings in the matter of People v. Joseph M. Maggard (No. CR 59230 Dept. 22) because of the OAL determination regarding the Department of Mental Health’s Clinical Evaluator Handbook and Standardized Assessment Protocol (2007). The DMH filed three documents: (1) Finding of Emergency, (2) ASVP Notice Memorandum, and (3) ASVP Language.

  • Misc.
    Info

  • 2007
    Evaluator
    Handbook
  • 2008
    Evaluator
    Handbook
  • 2009
    Evaluator
    Handbook
  • AD
    624
    Mail
  • IMD
    624
    Mail
  • AD-626
    Personal
    Property
  • AD-818
    Contraband

  • Patton
    State
    Hospital
  • DMH
    Special
    Orders
  • OAL
    Actions

Sept. 21, 2010: The California DMH posted on their website the announcement of new proposed emergency regulations. NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING, their FINDING OF EMERGENCY, and PROPOSED TEXT OF NEW REGULATIONS. On or about July 16, 2010, Chris Johnson with the law firm of Shook, Hardy & Bacon filed a petition with the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) challenging as underground regulations DMH's Level II Screening Guidelines (Guidelines). The Guidelines are contained in the structured screening instrument developed and updated by DMH as required by Welfare and Institutions Code Section 6601 (b). Further details are provided in the documents filed by the DMH.

Nothwithstanding the Administrative Procedures Act requires all state agencies to promulgate their rules and regulations, and even following the Governor's Executive Order, S-2-03, November 2, 2003, directing all state agencies to follow this law, the DMH considers itself above the law. This is interesting considering the DMH is presently incarcerating approximately 800 civil detainees because they might possibly commit a crime in the future, but yet the incarcerating agency refuses to follow the law in the present.

Michael St.Martin is presently filing petitions with the California Office of Administrative Law challenging the DMH's "Underground Regulations." St.Martin has won four such petitions and is in the process of filing more petitions. Eventhough none of the DMH rules and regulations have been legally promulgated, the way the OAL rules work, St.Martin must challenge each rule separately. Since there are hundreds of such rules and regulations, this is a very time consuming and costly process.

Nov. 19, 2009: The California 4th Appellate District, in a Published Decision, In re Ronje, G041373, upheld 2008 OAL Determination #19 which declared the 2007 Evaluator Handbook to be an Underground Regulation. The appellate court has now determined the appropriate remedy for using an underground regulation. This decision now tells those  facing SVP commitment what they need to do get those evaluations thrown out. But this must be done pre-trial, or else one must show actual prejudice which is difficult.

Petition to Office of Administrative Law challenging Assessment Protocol November 2008

Petition package complete with Evaluator Handbook and Exhibits

Clinical Evaluator Handbook and Standardized Assessment Protocol (Nov.2008)

Certification by the DMH it would no longer use this Protocol

OAL suspended action on the pending Petition following DMH certification

March 24, 2011: On 1/18/2011, a Petition was filed with the CA Office of Administrative Law challenging the issuing and use of CSH IMD-624. Click here to download or view the entire Petition Package and exhibits in pdf format. Internal Management Directive 624 (IMD-624) regulates INDIVIDUALS' MAIL AND PACKAGES.

On March 23, 2011, Cynthia Radavsky, the Deputy Director of DMH incharge of Long Term Care Services, issued and filed a Certification with the California Secretary of State. By filing this Certification, the DMH has essentially admitted that IMD-624 is an "Underground Regulation" by stating, "The Department will not use, enforce, or attempt to enforce the challenged Internal Management Directive No. 624 that was issued on October 12, 2010."

2008 OAL Determination No. 31, October 31, 2008, Patton State Hospital Administrative Directive 15.16, Allowable Items/Contraband. Petition filed by Endsley

2008 OAL Determination No. 32, DMH Special Order 339, Involuntary Administration of Antipsychotic Medication.... Petition filed by Jeff Griffin of the Citizens' Commission on Human Rights

The California Office of Administrative Law accepted a Petition challenging the Department of Mental Health Special Order 239.02-Contraband. The schedule of proceedings was published on May 1, 2009, in the California Notice Register 18z-2009 at pages 674 to 679. This Special Order affects all five California State Hospitals.

Found to be Underground Regulations

April 28, 2010: The California Office of Administrative Law posted notice on its website that it had approved the California DMH proposed rule on Contraband Electronic Devices. TITLE 9, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, SECTION 4350 is now an approved regulation. This link will take you to the proposed text that has now been approved by the OAL.

2009 OAL Determination No. 19. On August 26, 2009, the California Office of Administrative Law ruled that California Department of Mental Health Special Order 239.02, titled "Contraband," is an underground regulation.

2009 OAL Determination No. 12. On May 20, 2009, the California Office of Administrative Law ruled that California Department of Mental Health Special Order 130.01, The By Choice Incentive System, is an underground regulation.

2008 OAL Determination No. 24, September 8, 2008, Administrative Directive 624, Individual's Mail and Packages

2008 OAL Determination No. 23, August 27, 2008, Administrative Directive 818, Contraband

2008 OAL Determination No. 19, August 15, 2008, Clinical Evaluator Handbook and Standardized Assessment Protocol

OAL suspended action on Administrative Directive 626, Property, Petition following DMH certification on 2/6/08, that the DMH would no longer use this AD.

OAL suspended action on the Clinical Evaluator Handbook and Standardized Assessment Protocol (Nov.2008) on 2/24/09, following
Certification by the DMH
it would no longer use this Protocol

2008 OAL Determination No. 31, October 31, 2008, Patton State Hospital Administrative Directive 15.16, Allowable Items/Contraband. Petition filed by Endsley

2008 OAL Determination No. 32, DMH Special Order 339, Involuntary Administration of Antipsychotic Medication.... Petition filed by Jeff Griffin

 

Sept. 21, 2010: The California DMH posted on their website the announcement of new proposed emergency regulations. NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING, their FINDING OF EMERGENCY, and PROPOSED TEXT OF NEW REGULATIONS. On or about July 16, 2010, Chris Johnson with the law firm of Shook, Hardy & Bacon filed a petition with the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) challenging as underground regulations DMH's Level II Screening Guidelines (Guidelines). The Guidelines are contained in the structured screening instrument developed and updated by DMH as required by Welfare and Institutions Code Section 6601 (b). Further details are provided in the documents filed by the DMH.

May 19, 2010: The California Department of Mental Health withdrew the Regulations proposed on October 15, 2009, in document 2009-1015-04E. The document listed is 2010-0407-02S. We have not yet located this document, but it is listed in the 5-25-2010 OAL Recent Actions on Page 10.

April 28, 2010: The California Office of Administrative Law posted notice on its website that it had approved the California DMH proposed rule on Contraband Electronic Devices. TITLE 9, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, SECTION 4350 is now an approved regulation. This link will take you to the proposed text that has now been approved by the OAL.

Jan. 28, 2010: The California Department of Mental Health posted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on multiple subjects, and the DMH posted the TEXT of the PROPOSED SECTIONS which are to become part of Title 9, of the California Code of Regulations.

These are the same sections that were first proposed as emergency regulations on Sept. 22, 2009, along with the Contraband Electronic Devices section. All but the Contraband Electronic Devices section were later withdrawn. The DMH has now reintroduced the previously withdrawn sections, but this time they are not emergency regulations.

On February 18, 2009, the DMH certified to the California Secretary of State that, "The Department will not issue, use, enforce, or attempt to enforce the alleged underground regulation. The Department's Clinical Evaluator Handbook and Standardized Assessment Protocol November 2008."

The OAL suspended action on the Clinical Evaluator Handbook and Standardized Assessment Protocol (Nov.2008) on 2/24/09, following Certification by the DMH it would no longer use this Protocol.

Apr. 24, 2012: On March 22, 2012, CAL OSHA cited Coalinga State Hospital. Citation 1 includes five violations, and Citations 2 and 3 each have one violation. Click here to view or download a PDF of this citation.

Patient Incoming and Outgoing Telephone Numbers (4/23/09) Updated 3/31/2010

Patient Vendor List (8/22/2008)

On January 13, 2009, San Bernardino County Deputy District Attorney Camelia Hermine Mesrobian gave a presentation for Clinical Staff at Coalinga State Hospital. This presentation was entitled Preparation and Testimony as an Expert in Sexually Violent Predator Trials.

  • Prescription
    Drug
    Abuse Deaths
  • July 11
    2010 CSH
    Fire
  • MDOs
    Coming
    to CSH

July 9, 2012: CSH Canteen and Grill closed. After months of patient complaints that were ignored, staff complaints resulted in the Health Department closing the Canteen and Grill due to unsafe food handling and filthy conditions.

March 15, 2011: An eyewitness audio account of the March 5, 2011, death of Victor Segovia is now posted at voices of the gulag.

March 5, 2010: A CSH patient known as "Weasel" died from what is being alleged as abuse of the prescription drug "Methadone." This is not the first instance. Patient Steve Mendoza, who died on 9/27/2010, is another known CSH victim of Methadone.

In 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a caution about methadone, titled “Methadone Use for Pain Control May Result in Death.” (Source: wikipedia)

Approximately 82 percent of Methodone deaths were listed as accidental, and most deaths involved combinations of methadone with other drugs (especially benzodiazepines). (Source: wikipedia)

See more on Methadone on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methadone

MAJOR ELECTRICAL FIRE AND EMERGENCY AT COALINGA STATE HOSPITAL

July 11, 2009: It was reported from Coalinga State Hospital (CSH) today that there was a complete power outage for the entire hospital.

The cause is reported to be a main transformer which caught on fire and did major damage to the electrical distribution system, and the emergency power switch-over system. Several fire trucks were required to contain the fire.

Since the emergency power system was also damaged and failed to function. It took over two hours to restore a modicum of emergency power to limited areas, mainly lighting and air circulation in the hallways.

The patients were kept on lockdown status for over four hours under intolerable conditions.

There is presently no lighting or air circulation in the housing area rooms and dorms.

There is no power available for the culinary areas to cook food or for the refrigeration systems to properly keep food, nor is it likely power will be restored to that area anytime soon. A significant amount of spoilage is expected. The culinary workers are attempting to prepare sack meals to feed the patients.

For over two hours the facility was pitch black, as it did not have a functioning emergency backup lighting system. Some staff had flashlights which were used within the units. The water pumps were also off and there was no water in the bathrooms or for drinking. Some water was restored after over two hours had passed.

Flashlights are now being propped on chairs in the bathrooms to provide some lighting for that function.

The facility’s main phone system and computer systems were also knocked out by the power failure. It is being reported that the parts to repair this damage are not readily available, and the hospital will be lucky if power is restored sometime next week.

The question is being raised as to whether or not the State of California presently has enough money available to pay the necessary vendors to repair the extensive major damage caused by this transformer and resulting fire.

MAJOR ELECTRICAL FIRE AND EMERGENCY AT COALINGA STATE HOSPITAL

July 12, 2009, update:

On July 11, the main transformer surged and caught on fire. It was completely destroyed. All computerized electrical systems were automatically shut down. The generators actually kicked in, but had to be shut down so the facility electricians could work on the system. The electricians began the slow process of moving circuits onto the emergency generator grid. Due to the limited generator capacity, only essential areas of the hospital were put on the generator.

The fire caused by the transformer required five fire trucks to put out the resulting grass fire, and also hazmat trucks were called in to clean up any spilled material.

The earlier rumors about PG&E working throughout the night and to get power restored turned out to be false.

As of approximately 9:30 am all essential power had been restored in the facility. It was a slow process, as crews had to go to each area and reset systems.

There is still no power in the culinary area, and the patients will be fed sack meals until at least Tuesday.

Major flaws were exposed in the "state-of-the-art" system. There is essentially no redundancy in the emergency power back-up system.

A major problem was exposed in the medication dispensing system known as "Med Select." Without power, the hospital was unable to dispense medications to patients. Only a pharmacist has access to the medications when the machine is inoperative, and there was no pharmacist available.

For a substantial period of time, there was no power whatsoever available in the medical units which are required under the law to have emergency power available for life support systems and the like.

When the fire first started, the visiting room was closed, upsetting some visitors.

The hospital hopes to be able to purchase a new transformer on Monday and have it installed by Tuesday, but that will hinge on their ability to actually obtain a transformer.

The emergency back-up deficiencies exposed by this event are expected to result in extensive costs through retrofitting this so called "state-of-the-art" facility. Retrofitting that will be required to bring the facility up to the licensing standards for hospitals under state and federal laws.

July 15, 2009. update:

The power is now fully restored at CSH.


July 8, 2009. It is being reported by sources at Coalinga State Hospital ("CSH") that the California DMH is preparing to move all of the civil commitments out of Atascadero State Hospital ("ASH") to make more room at ASH for prison commitments. Many of those committed pursuant to Penal Code § 2972 are expected to be moved to CSH and will be sharing the resources with the SVPs already at CSH. The moving process is expected to begin on August 4, 2009, at a rate of ten patients per week until the available bed space is filled. The latest number available is reported to be 360 to be transferred to CSH.

On July 10, 2009, DeMorales issued a Memo at ASH stating that all 6600s and 2972s would be gone from ASH by October.

 

 

  • The
    Insider
  • The
    Ally
  • Gulag
    News

The Ally is an independent publication of "The People's Committee," which is the patient government at Coalinga State Hospital. The People's Committee consists of representatives elected by the CSH patients to represent patient interests and problems to the CSH Administration. The Ally is their newsletter, and is being made available for download here in pdf format. Defense for SVP will provide more editions of this publication as soon as they are obtained.

Aug. 16, 2010: The CSH newsletter formerly called The Ally has now become The Insider. The Aug. 2010 edition is available here.

July 7, 2010: The CSH Administration disbanded The Ally. According to reports, the CSH Administration felt that the publication had strayed from its original mission of providing an informative and positive newsletter for the CSH residents. That the publication had become far too political, and the Administration was no longer willing to spend taxpayer money by providing a computer workstation and paying for the publication costs, and then the become target of attacks by the very publication they were funding.

At this time, there is no information available as to whether or not The Ally will be published as an underground newspaper, or if the CSH Administration will restart the publication at some point in the future with a different staff that is willing to follow the original mission plan.

July 2009 Edition

August 2009 Edition

November-December 2009 Edition It should be noted that this is the uncensored version of the Nov-Dec Edition, and contains an article which was not allowed to be published in the print edition. The censored article is also provided here so the readers can see which article offended the CSH censors. The defenseforsvp.com website has been informed that the Vocational Print Shop at CSH has been printing the print version of The Ally, and thus the CSH Administration gets to approve or censor the content.

January-February 2010 Edition

Feb 22, 2010: Two additional editions of The Ally have been obtained. January-February 2010 Edition, and the controversial November-December 2009 Edition. It should be noted that this is the uncensored version of the Nov-Dec Edition, and contains an article which was not allowed to be published in the print edition. The censored article is also provided here so the readers can see which article offended the CSH censors. The defenseforsvp.com website has been informed that the Vocational Print Shop at CSH has been printing the print version of The Ally, and thus the CSH Administration gets to approve or censor the content.

The print version of The Ally was being printed by the Vocational Print Shop at CSH. The CSH Administration refused to allow the March 2010 edition of The Ally to be printed, allegedly due to articles critical of CSH or DMH, and for an article about the Director of Napa State Hospital being arrested for child molestation. However,this appears to be a double standard, as the CSH Administration had no problem with patients bashing one another in articles. A censored version of the March 2010 edition has been prepared and submitted for printing by the Vocational Print Shop. We will provide the UNCENSORED version of the March 2010 edition of The Ally. Family or friends of the civil detainees are encouraged to print the The Ally Uncensored and mail a copy into the institution.

 

 

  • DSM-IV

  • Pyschology
    Presentations

Until other items become available, this section presently consists of audio recordings of presentations relevant to civil commitment made at the 24th annual symposium of the American College of Forensic Psychology held in San Francisco on April 12, 2008.

Ethics and the Law Update: Williams (mp3)

Identifying Sexual Predators: Baker (mp3)

Internet Fantasy and Prediction: Atkins (mp3)

Juror Verdict: Geiselman (mp3)

Participation in Sexually Violent Predator Evaluations: Good and Burst (mp3)

 

 

  • Release
    Plan

  • Relapse
    Prevention

  • SVP
    Commitment
    Concerns
  • Misc. Opinion
    Articles and
    Papers

SVP Commitment Concerns_Worksheet

HANSON STUDY SHOWS TREATMENT HAS LITTLE EFFECT Author Unknown (circa 2007) This article deals with one of the main reasons approximately 80% of those committed under the California SVPA refuse treatment.

SEPARATE FINDING OF A "SERIOUS AND WELL FOUNDED RISK" Article by Tom Watson (2003)

SVP RESPONDENT NEEDS AT LEAST TWO EXPERT WITNESSES by: Tom Watson (2006) An SVP Respondent is entitled to Parity with the Prosecution.

Comments on November 2003 Department of Justice, BJS, Report:, "Recidivism of Sex Offeners Released from Prison in 1994", by Tom Watson - 2004

Sex offenders’ behavior hard to explain (2009)

Are You Cured? By Lester Welch, Ph.D. (2007)

 

Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.

Get Adobe Flash player