Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00995/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00995-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VADIM STANLEY MIESEGAES,

Petitioner,

 v.

KAMALA HARRIS, et al.,

Respondents. /

No. C 15-0995 MEJ (PR)

ORDER OF TRANSFER

On March 3, 2015, petitioner, an insanity acquitee housed at Atascadero State

Hospital and proceeding pro se, filed a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. He represents that he is a Swiss national and requests that the Court order

the United States Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (“I.C.E.”) to commence deportation proceedings. On June 12, 2015, the Court

denied petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and ordered him to

pay the $5.00 filing fee by July 10, 2015 or face dismissal of this action. Petitioner was later

granted an extension to September 30, 2015 to pay the filing fee. Petitioner has filed a

motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying IFP status.

Generally, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is the proper basis for a habeas petition by a state

prisoner who is not held “pursuant to the judgment of a State court,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254, for

instance a pre-trial detainee, a prisoner awaiting extradition, or a prisoner whose conviction

has been reversed on appeal. See Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 633 (7th Cir. 2000) 

(Listing “pre-conviction custody, custody awaiting extradition, or other forms of custody that

are possible without a conviction” as examples of when Section 2241 applies). Section 2241

Case 3:15-cv-00995-MEJ Document 15 Filed 09/02/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

is the proper basis for the instant petition because petitioner is challenging his detention

pending removal proceedings. Further, petitioner was never convicted in State court, but

rather, was found not guilty by reason of insanity.

The petition must be transferred because jurisdiction does not lie in this district. 

Section 2241 allows “the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any

circuit judge” to grant writs of habeas corpus “within their respective jurisdictions.” 28

U.S.C. § 2241(a). The Supreme Court has interpreted the “within their respective

jurisdiction” language to mean that a Section 2241 petitioner challenging his present physical

custody must file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district of confinement. 

Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 446-47 (2004).

Petitioner’s commitment proceedings are in San Francisco County, which is in this

district. However, he is confined in San Luis Obispo County, which is in the Central District

of California. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and Habeas Local Rule 2254-

3(b), and in the interests of justice, this petition is TRANSFERRED to the United States

District Court for the Central District of California.

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED as moot. Ruling on the request to

proceed in forma pauperis will be deferred to the Central District.

The Clerk shall transfer this matter forthwith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

Maria-Elena James

United States Magistrate Judge

SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

Case 3:15-cv-00995-MEJ Document 15 Filed 09/02/15 Page 2 of 2