Johnson v. Santa Clara County
This text of 161 F. App'x 683 (Johnson v. Santa Clara County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Joseph Johnson, Jr. appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Because the SVPA is civil rather than criminal or punitive in form; see Hubbart v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County, 19 Cal.4th 1138, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 492, 514, 969 P.2d 584 (1999); see also Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 361, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997); Johnson does not have a right to bail under the Eighth Amendment. The district court therefore did not err in its rejection of Johnson’s Eighth Amendment claim.
On the facts alleged in his habeas petition, Johnson does not have a due process right to bail pending trial on his SVP status. Although it is possible that substantial delay in SVP trial proceedings could constitute a due process violation, in this appeal, that issue is not properly before this court. The district court therefore did not err in rejecting Johnson’s due process argument.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
161 F. App'x 683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-santa-clara-county-ca9-2006.