Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02717/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02717-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronnie M. Hunter
Petitioner
Audrey King
Respondent

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

No. C 15-2717 RS (PR)

ORDER OF TRANSFER

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

 

 *E-Filed 10/19/15*

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

RONNIE M. HUNTER,

Petitioner,

v.

AUDREY KING, 

Respondent. /

No. C 15-2717 RS (PR)

ORDER OF TRANSFER 

Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 from his pretrial

detention. He is being held at Coalinga State Hospital in Fresno County, 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. The trial will be held in Alameda County. 

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),

Case 3:15-cv-02717-RS Document 7 Filed 10/19/15 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

No. C 15-2717 RS (PR)

2 ORDER OF TRANSFER

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 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). 

Petitioner is being held in Fresno County, which is in the Eastern District of

California. Because this is the district of confinement, this action is TRANSFERRED to the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1404(a) and Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b), and in the interests of justice. 

The Clerk shall transfer this matter forthwith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 19, 2015 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02717-RS Document 7 Filed 10/19/15 Page 2 of 2