Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Stanbridge v. Scott

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division

October 4, 2016

KEVIN W. STANBRIDGE, Petitioner,
v.
GREGORY SCOTT, Respondent.

OPINION

          RICHARD MILLS, U.S. District Judge.

         Kevin W. Stanbridge has filed a Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 [d/e 1] for Writ of Habeas Corpus and a Motion for Relief from Judgment [d/e 2]. Pending also is the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice [d/e 11].

         I. BACKGROUND

         On May 4, 2005, while Petitioner Kevin W. Stanbridge was serving a seven-year prison sentence for criminal sexual abuse of a child, the State filed a petition to have him civilly committed pursuant to the Illinois Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act (the SVP Act), 725 ILCS 207/1, et seq. Under the SVP Act, a person may be civilly committed if he or she is found to be a “sexually violent person, ” meaning a person who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense and suffers from a mental disorder that makes it substantially probable he or she will engage in additional acts of sexual violence.

         On October 12, 2007, an Adams County, Illinois jury found the Petitioner to be a sexually violent person and he was ordered to be committed to a secured facility for institutional care and treatment until such time that he was no longer sexually violent.

         The Petitioner appealed and the appellate court affirmed. On March 25, 2009, the Illinois Supreme Court denied the Petitioner's corresponding PLA. The Petitioner did not file a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.

         On February 10, 2010, the Petitioner filed a petition for relief from judgment, alleging that his appellate counsel in the civil commitment proceeding provided ineffective assistance by failing to argue, among other things, that the trial judge violated due process and should have recused himself and there was not probable cause to believe the Petitioner was sexually violent. As of the time the Respondent's Motion was filed, there had been no final ruling on that petition.

         On October 20, 2015, the Petitioner filed the present habeas corpus petition, challenging the October 2007 civil contempt judgment. The petition raises the following grounds:

         (1) Petitioner's appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by (i) failing to argue that the trial judge violated due process and should have recused himself; (ii) failing to include pro se pleadings in the Notice of Appeal; (iii) making vague arguments; (iv) failing to argue facts and evidence barred from Petitioner's counsel's use at trial; (v) failing to contest the State's use of certain trial transcripts; and (vi) failing to contest the testimony of one of the State's experts;

         (2) The judge who found probable cause that Petitioner was a sexually violent person such that the initial civil commitment proceedings should proceed to trial was biased against Petitioner;

         (3) Prosecutorial misconduct relating to the State's decision to seek Petitioner's civil commitment; and

         (4) There was insufficient evidence to prove Petitioner was a sexually violent person.

         The petition also raises a number of state law grounds that are not cognizable on federal habeas review. See Estelle ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.