Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03236/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03236-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAURICE WRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v.

JERRY BROWN,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-03236-EMC 

ORDER OF TRANSFER

Docket No. 1

Petitioner has filed a form 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. He is currently awaiting trial to determine 

whether he is a Sexually Violent Predator subject to civil commitment under the SVPA. In his 

petition, he 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) (§ 2241 proper basis for pre-trial double jeopardy challenge). Although this 

court may have jurisdiction to hear a petition brought under § 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 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 § 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. 

Case 3:15-cv-03236-EMC Document 9 Filed 10/28/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 

action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

California. Ruling on the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be deferred to the Eastern 

District. The Clerk shall transfer this matter forthwith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 28, 2015

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03236-EMC Document 9 Filed 10/28/15 Page 2 of 2