Johnson v. Bonta

Background

A jury adjudged Lamar Johnson a sexually violent predator under California Welfare and Institutions Code section 6604, and he was civilly committed. In 2018, the San Mateo County Superior Court ordered his conditional release after finding that he would not be dangerous to others while receiving supervision and treatment in the community. The court directed a community program to find him a suitable placement.

Johnson remained civilly committed while the program searched for a placement. In 2021, he argued that the delay violated his due process rights and sought, among other relief, unconditional release. The Superior Court did not adopt his proposed alternatives. A placement was later approved, and Johnson was released to the community on March 22, 2022, more than three and a half years after the conditional-release order.

The California Court of Appeal dismissed Johnson’s appeal as moot because he had been placed in the community and the court could no longer grant effective relief. It also rejected his argument that the delay entitled him to unconditional release, explaining that he had cited no authority for that remedy. The California Supreme Court summarily denied review. The California Court of Appeal also denied a separate habeas petition as moot after Johnson was being released from confinement.

Federal Habeas Standard

Because the California Supreme Court summarily denied review, the district court reviewed the California Court of Appeal’s last reasoned decision. Under the federal habeas statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), a federal court may grant relief only if the state court’s decision was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established United States Supreme Court precedent, or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. The court described this as a highly deferential standard.

Analysis

Johnson argued that the delay between the conditional-release order and his actual release violated due process and that the California Court of Appeal should therefore have ordered his unconditional release. He did not claim that the fact-finding process leading to conditional rather than unconditional release denied him procedural due process. He also did not request a hearing to determine whether he should be unconditionally released; he asked the federal court to order that relief directly.

The court held that Johnson had not shown that the state court’s ruling was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. Although Johnson cited authority stating that a sexually violent predator may not remain continuously confined after being found no longer dangerous to the community, the court said that authority did not establish that a delay in release requires unconditional release as the remedy.

The court stated that the process for obtaining unconditional release is governed by state law. It noted that it was not clear whether the California Court of Appeal correctly treated the remedy question as moot rather than reaching its merits. Nevertheless, the district court concluded that the Court of Appeal correctly determined that Johnson was not entitled to unconditional release under state law. California Welfare and Institutions Code section 6608 allows a sexually violent predator to petition for unconditional release, but requires a finding that the person is no longer dangerous to the health and safety of others and is not likely to engage in sexually violent criminal behavior. The court found that no such finding had been made and that Johnson had not filed a section 6608 petition.

Disposition

The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It also ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue, directed the Clerk to enter judgment for Respondent Rob Bonta, and ordered the file closed.