Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-03721/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-03721-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Audrey King
Defendant
Sammy L. Page
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

SAMMY L. PAGE,

Petitioner, 

 v.

AUDREY KING, Acting Executive

Director California Department of

Mental Health,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 12-3721 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF TRANSFER

Petitioner is a civil detainee in Fresno County, California. He filed this pro se petition

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 challenging the basis for his pre-trial

detention while awaiting resolution of a petition to recommit him as a sexually violent predator

under California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act (“SVPA”). See Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code

6600, et seq.. Petitioner claims that changes in the field of psychiatry called into question the

mental health diagnosis that formed the basis for both his initial commitment and the petition to

recommit him. 

The recommitment petition was filed in Alameda County in 2006, and the instant federal

habeas petition was filed in 2012. His federal petition was dismissed under the abstention

principles set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), because he had a probable cause

Case 3:12-cv-03721-WHA Document 43 Filed 04/13/16 Page 1 of 3
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

hearing scheduled in his recommitment proceedings in state court. He appealed that dismissal

order and in January 2013, the United States Court of Appeals affirmed. In July 2013, petitioner

filed a “motion for relief,” which was construed as a motion for reconsideration under Rule

60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A probable cause hearing was still scheduled in

his recommitment proceedings in state court, and thus the motion for reconsideration was

denied in August 2013. Petitioner appealed the denial of his motion for reconsideration. 

In February 2016, the United States Court of Appeals remanded. The Court of Appeals

did not reach the merits of the appeal, but instead remanded for a determination whether this

court had jurisdiction to issue the orders of dismissal and denying reconsideration because

petitioner is not confined in this district. The Court of Appeals held that “[a]s a general rule

Section 2241 petitions ‘must be heard in the custodial court.’” Page v. King, No. 13-17352, slip

op. 4 (9th Cir. Feb. 25, 2016) (quoting Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir.

2000) (per curiam)). Because petitioner is confined in Fresno County, his custodial court is the

Eastern District of California. See id. at 4-5. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals instructed this

court to vacate the order dismissing the instant federal petition and to transfer this case to the

Eastern District if this court determined that it lacked jurisdiction over the petition. Id. at 5. 

The mandate issued on March 23, 2016, and on April 1, 2016, petitioner filed a “supplemental

brief” regarding the Court of Appeals’s remand order. The brief argues that this court has

jurisdiction over this case under Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484 (1973),

because his custodian, Audrey King, can be reached by service of process. 

Section 2241 allows "the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any

circuit judge" to grant writs of habeas corpus "within their respective jurisdictions." 28 U.S.C.

2241(a). Relying on the "within their respective jurisdictions" language, the Supreme Court

held that personal jurisdiction over a federal habeas corpus petition lies exclusively in the single

federal judicial district in which both the custodian of the prisoner and the prisoner reside. 

Ahrens v. Clark, 335 U.S. 188, 190-91 (1948). In Braden, however, the Supreme Court held

that Section 2241(a) required "nothing more than that the court issuing the writ have jurisdiction

over the custodian. So long as the custodian can be reached by service of process, the court can

Case 3:12-cv-03721-WHA Document 43 Filed 04/13/16 Page 2 of 3
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

3

issue a writ 'within its jurisdiction' requiring that the prisoner be brought before the court . . .

even if the prisoner himself is confined outside the court's territorial jurisdiction." Id. at 495. 

The Supreme Court subsequently characterized this quotation as dicta insofar as it refers to

service of process, and held that in cases challenging a federal petitioner’s present physical

confinement, such as the instant case, “jurisdiction over the custodian” means that the custodian

is within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 444 (2004). 

The Court in Rumsfeld interpreted the “within their respective jurisdictions” language of Section

2241(a) to mean nothing more than that the court issuing the writ must have jurisdiction over

the custodian. Id. at 440-42. For petitions under Section 2241 challenging present physical

confinement, this is not synonymous with any district in which the respondent is amenable to

service of process, but rather “jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” 

Id. at 442-44.

Under Rumsfeld, the district with jurisdiction over this case is the Eastern District of

California because that is where petitioner is confined. Accordingly, pursuant to the remand

order of the United States Court of Appeals, the order dismissing the instant petition is

VACATED and this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of California. The clerk shall transfer this matter forthwith. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April , 2016. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13

Case 3:12-cv-03721-WHA Document 43 Filed 04/13/16 Page 3 of 3