Welch v. Allenby et al
Filing
8
ORDER OF TRANSFER. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 01/21/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/21/2015) [Transferred from cand on 1/23/2015.]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
KENDYL WELCH,
11
No C-14-5223 TEH (PR)
Plaintiff.
ORDER OF TRANSFER
12
13
14
v.
CLIFF ALLENBY, et al.,
Defendants.
/
15
16
Plaintiff is a civil detainee at the Coalinga State
17
Hospital ("Coalinga") proceeding pro se.
18
California's Sexually Violent Predator Act ("SVPA").
19
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, complaining about the conditions
20
of his confinement at Coalinga.
21
Coalinga and of the California Department of Corrections and
22
Rehabilitation in Sacramento.
23
within the venue of the United States District Court for the Eastern
24
District of California.
25
the Eastern District.
26
27
28
He is detained pursuant to
He has filed a
Defendants are officials of
Both Coalinga and Sacramento lie
Venue for this case is therefore proper in
See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
Petitioner also complains about the validity of his
assessment as a sexually violent predator under the SVPA, which
1
assessment took place in San Francisco County.
2
assessment itself are the province of a habeas petition, not a civil
3
rights action, because they implicate the validity of his detention.
4
See Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579 (2006) (challenges to the
5
lawfulness of confinement or to particulars affecting its duration
6
are the province of habeas corpus); Nelson v. Sandritter, 351 F.2d
7
284, 285 (9th Cir. 1965) (constitutionality of state civil
8
commitment proceedings are challenged in federal habeas corpus once
9
state remedies have been exhausted).
Challenges to the
Plaintiff may challenge the
10
validity of his assessment in this court, but he must do so by way
11
of a habeas petition filed in a separate action from the instant
12
civil rights case, after exhausting state judicial remedies.
13
Accordingly, and in the interests of justice, this case is
14
TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern
15
District of California.
16
of this transfer, the pending motion (dkt. 3) to proceed in forma
17
pauperis is deferred to the Eastern District.
18
19
pending motions as moot and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED
01/21/2015
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In light
The Clerk shall transfer this matter, terminate all
20
21
See 28 U.S.C. 1404(a), 1406(a).
G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.14\Welch 14-5223 Transfer.wpd
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?