Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03140/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03140-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerry Brown
Respondent
James Q. Hill
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

JAMES Q. HILL,

Petitioner,

 v.

JERRY BROWN, 

Respondent. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 15-3140 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF TRANSFER

(Dkt. No. 3)

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 that "venue considerations may, and frequently will,

Case 4:15-cv-03140-JSW Document 8 Filed 09/01/15 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

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: September 1, 2015 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-03140-JSW Document 8 Filed 09/01/15 Page 2 of 2