Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03168/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03168-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerry Brown
Respondent
Richard Telucci
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD TELUCCI,

Petitioner,

v.

JERRY BROWN,

Respondent.

Case No. 15-cv-03168-HSG (PR) 

ORDER OF TRANSFER

Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 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, 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. 

Case 4:15-cv-03168-HSG Document 10 Filed 10/05/15 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

Northern District of California

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 Section 2241 

petition is district where petitioner confined). 

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

Petitioner 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

10/5/2015

Case 4:15-cv-03168-HSG Document 10 Filed 10/05/15 Page 2 of 2