Telucci v. Brown

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-03168

ORDER OF TRANSFER. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 10/5/2015.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 RICHARD TELUCCI, 7 Case No. 15-cv-03168-HSG (PR) Petitioner, 8 ORDER OF TRANSFER v. 9 JERRY BROWN, 10 Respondent. 11 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner 14 is being held in Coalinga State Hospital in Coalinga, California, under California's Sexual Violent 15 Predator Act ("SVPA"). See Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6600, et seq. He is currently awaiting trial 16 to determine whether he is a Sexually Violent Predator subject to civil commitment under the 17 SVPA. In his petition, he argues that the California Department of State Hospitals is violating his 18 double jeopardy rights by using certain standards, procedures, and assessment tools to determine if 19 he is a Sexually Violent Predator. He also argues that abstention is not appropriate. 20 Section 2241 is the proper basis for the petition because petitioner is a pretrial detainee 21 challenging the constitutionality of his confinement. See Hoyle v. Ada County, 501 F.3d 1053, 22 1058 (9th Cir. 2007) (Section 2241 proper basis for pre-trial double jeopardy challenge). 23 Although this court may have jurisdiction to hear a petition brought under Section 2241, see 24 Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 494-95 (1973), Braden also makes clear that 25 "venue considerations may, and frequently will, argue in favor of adjudication of the habeas claim 26 in the jurisdiction where the habeas petitioner is confined." Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 27 F.2d 804, 814 (D.C. Cir. 1988). The preferable forum for a Section 2241 habeas petition is the 28 district of confinement. See McCoy v. United States Bd. of Parole, 537 F.2d 962, 966 (8th Cir. 1 1976); see also Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249-50 (9th Cir. 1989) (suggesting that even 2 where district court has personal jurisdiction over custodian, preferred forum for Section 2241 3 petition is district where petitioner confined). 4 The commitment proceedings are in San Francisco County, which is in this district, and 5 Petitioner is confined in Fresno County, which is in the Eastern District of California. See 28 6 U.S.C. § 84. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b), and in the interests of 7 justice, this petition is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District 8 of California. Ruling on the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be deferred to the Eastern 9 District. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: 10/5/2015 12 ______________________________________ Northern District of California United States District Court HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2