Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03198/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03198-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerry Brown
Respondent
Larry Young
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY YOUNG,

Petitioner,

 vs.

JERRY BROWN, Governor,

Respondent.

/

No. C 15-3198 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF TRANSFER

(Dkt. No. 2)

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) (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

Case 3:15-cv-03198-WHA Document 8 Filed 09/01/15 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

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 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. 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: August 31 , 2015. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-03198-WHA Document 8 Filed 09/01/15 Page 2 of 2