Plummer

MEMORANDUM *

Ronald Edward Smith contends that the district court erred in summarily dismissing as unexhausted the several claims in his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We agree.

In filing his petition, Smith clearly stated that each of his claims had been adjudicated by the California Supreme Court. He also responded affirmatively to the following question on a court-provided form: “Is any petition, appeal or other post-conviction proceeding now pending in any court?” The exhibits attached to Smith’s petition suggest that the pending “petition” was in fact a civil commitment petition against Smith, which Smith wished to challenge through federal habeas as a violation of his plea agreement. A summary dismissal based on such a filing is erroneous in one of two ways.

If, on the one hand, the district court understood that the pending state proceeding in question was an allegedly illegal civil commitment proceeding, the exhaustion requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b) and (c) would pose no obstacle to review. See Coe v. Thurman, 922 F.2d 528, 530-531 (9th Cir.1990); Hartley v. Neely, 701 F.2d 780, 781 (9th Cir.1983). If, on the other hand, the district court did not infer the…