Andrade v. Price
- Nathanael Cousins
- 3:24-cv-00257
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Andrade v. Price, Judge Cousins ordered the respondent to explain why Tony Andrade’s habeas petition should not be granted.
Tony Andrade must continue litigating his habeas petition and meet the stated filing and service requirements. Brandan Price must respond to the petition or file a procedural motion within 60 days.
What happened
In Andrade v. Price, Tony Andrade, a state prisoner without a lawyer, asked the court to review his indeterminate hospital commitment under California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act.
Andrade claimed there was insufficient evidence that a victim was prepubescent and that his pedophilia-disorder diagnosis rested on an unreasonable factual determination. The court found these claims could be considered under federal habeas law but did not decide whether Andrade was entitled to relief.
Judge Nathanael M. Cousins ordered Brandan Price to respond within 60 days. Price may file an answer or a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, and Andrade may respond under the deadlines in the order.
The detailed version
- Andrade v. Price · No. 3:24-cv-00257
- Nathanael Cousins
- Apr. 16, 2024
Background
Tony Andrade, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asking for federal review of his state-court custody. The opinion states that Andrade was sentenced on December 17, 2020, to an indeterminate hospital commitment under California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act. His conviction was affirmed on appeal, and the California Supreme Court denied review in 2022. Andrade filed this petition on January 16, 2024, and paid the filing fee.
Claims
Andrade raised two claims for federal habeas relief: first, that there was insufficient evidence that any victim was prepubescent; and second, that his diagnosis of pedophilia disorder was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.
Court’s analysis
Federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is available when a person held under a state-court judgment is in custody in violation of the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. The court stated that a commitment under California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act apparently is reviewed under the standards in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Applying the initial habeas-petition review standard, the court concluded that Andrade’s claims were legally reviewable, or “cognizable.” The court did not decide whether either claim was meritorious.
Order
The court ordered Brandan Price to show why the petition should not be granted as to Andrade’s two claims. The clerk was directed to serve the order and petition on Price and the Attorney General of California, and to mail a copy to Andrade.
Price must file and serve an answer within 60 days of the order’s issuance, together with relevant portions of the previously transcribed state trial record. Instead of an answer, Price may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within the same period. The order sets separate deadlines for Andrade’s response to an answer or motion to dismiss and for Price’s reply.
The order also reminded Andrade to serve his court filings on Price’s counsel, keep the court and parties informed of any address change, and comply with court deadlines. It stated that failure to do so may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order did not grant or deny habeas relief and did not resolve the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.