Evans v. Black

Background

Burl Evans, who the opinion says is being held at Napa State Hospital, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. section 2254 challenging his custody. The petition referred to a judgment of indefinite civil commitment from the Contra Costa County Superior Court. Evans also described himself as a pretrial detainee in an ongoing case. The court said the petition did not make clear whether Evans had been convicted or was awaiting trial.

Evans asserted four types of violations: ineffective assistance of counsel; questioning by Napa State Hospital staff without an attorney present, which he said violated his Miranda rights; compelled discussions about his crime that allegedly prevented a fair trial; and discrimination against poor defendants through the application of California Penal Code section 1370.

Court’s analysis and order

The court explained that a petition under section 2254 generally concerns custody under a state-court judgment. If a person is not confined under a final state-court judgment, the petition must instead be treated as arising under section 2241(c)(3), which provides federal habeas jurisdiction over custody allegedly violating federal law or the Constitution. Because it was not clear from the petition whether Evans was entitled to relief, the court issued an order requiring the respondent to show cause—that is, to explain why the requested writ should not issue.

The Clerk was directed to serve the order and petition on the respondent and the Attorney General of California, and to mail the order to Evans. Within 60 days, the respondent must file and serve an answer complying with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, including relevant portions of the available state-court record. Instead of an answer, the respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within the same 60-day period. Evans may respond within 30 days after receiving an answer or motion. The court also directed Evans to prosecute the case, keep the court informed of address changes, and serve his court communications on opposing counsel.

Disposition

The court did not grant or deny the requested habeas relief and did not decide the merits of Evans’s claims. It issued the order to show cause and set procedures for the respondent’s answer or procedural motion and Evans’s response. The court denied Evans’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee as moot because he had already paid the $5 filing fee. The order terminated docket number 7.