Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03806/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03806-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerry Brown
Respondent
Joseph Webb
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

JOSEPH WEBB,

Petitioner,

v.

JERRY BROWN,

Respondent.

Case No. 15-cv-03806-YGR (PR)

ORDER OF TRANSFER

Petitioner has filed a form habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He also filed a motion 

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. He 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. 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). 

Case 4:15-cv-03806-YGR Document 8 Filed 11/09/15 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

The commitment proceedings are in Contra Costa 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 

action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

California. The Clerk shall transfer the case forthwith. 

All remaining motions are TERMINATED on this Court’s docket as no longer pending in 

this district.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

November 9, 2015

Case 4:15-cv-03806-YGR Document 8 Filed 11/09/15 Page 2 of 2