Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03149/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03149-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

Order of Transfer

P:\PRO-SE\RMW\HC.15\Mack149trans.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS MACK, 

Petitioner,

 v.

JERRY BROWN, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 15-3149 RMW (PR)

ORDER OF TRANSFER

Petitioner has filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner is being held in

Coalinga State Hospital in Coalinga, California, under California’s Sexual Violent Predator Act

(“SVPA”). See Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 6600, et seq. In his petition, petitioner argues that

the California Department of State Hospitals is violating his double jeopardy rights by using

certain standards, procedures, and assessment tools to determine if he is a Sexually Violent

Predator. He also argues that abstention is not appropriate. 

Section 2241 is the proper basis for the petition because petitioner is a pretrial detainee

challenging the constitutionality of his confinement. See Hoyle v. Ada County, 501 F.3d 1053,

1058 (9th Cir. 2007) (Section 2241 proper basis for pre-trial double jeopardy challenge). 

Although this court may have jurisdiction to hear a petition brought under Section 2241, see

Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 494-95 (1973), Braden also makes clear that

“venue considerations may, and frequently will, argue in favor of adjudication of the habeas

Case 5:15-cv-03149-RMW Document 8 Filed 11/06/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Order of Transfer

P:\PRO-SE\RMW\HC.15\Mack149trans.wpd 2

claim in the jurisdiction where the habeas petitioner is confined.” Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh,

864 F.2d 804, 814 (D.C. Cir. 1988). The preferable forum for a Section 2241 habeas petition is

the district of confinement. See McCoy v. United States Bd. of Parole, 537 F.2d 962, 966 (8th

Cir. 1976); see also Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249-50 (9th Cir. 1989) (suggesting that

even where district court has personal jurisdiction over custodian, preferred forum for 2241

petition is district where petitioner confined). 

The commitment proceedings are in San Francisco County, which is in this district, and

he is confined in Fresno County, which is in the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 84. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b), and in the interests of justice,

this petition is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

California. 

The clerk shall terminate all pending motions, and transfer this matter forthwith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: RONALD M. WHYTE 

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-03149-RMW Document 8 Filed 11/06/15 Page 2 of 2