Gibson v. Brown

Filing 8

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the Eastern District of California. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 10/1/2015. (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOHN GIPSON, Case No. 15-cv-03475-VC (PR) Petitioner, 8 ORDER OF TRANSFER v. 9 10 JERRY BROWN, Respondent. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 John Gipson has filed a form habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Gipson 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 18 sexually violent predator. He also argues that abstention is not appropriate. 19 Section 2241 is the proper basis for the petition because Gipson is a pretrial detainee 20 challenging the constitutionality of his confinement. See Hoyle v. Ada County, 501 F.3d 1053, 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1058 (9th Cir. 2007). 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 1 2 3 4 5 Cir. 1989) (suggesting that, even where district court has personal jurisdiction over custodian, preferred forum for 2241 petition is district of confinement). Gipson’s commitment proceedings are in Alameda 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 petition is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 6 California. Ruling on the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be deferred to the Eastern 7 District. 8 The clerk shall transfer this matter forthwith. 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 1, 2015 ______________________________________ VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOHN GIPSON, Case No. 15-cv-03475-VC Plaintiff, 8 v. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 9 10 JERRY BROWN, Defendant. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on October 1, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 18 19 20 John Gipson ID: 1446-2 Coalinga State Hospital P.O. Box 5003 Coalinga, CA 93210-5003 21 22 Dated: October 1, 2015 23 24 25 Susan Y. Soong Clerk, United States District Court 26 27 28 By:________________________ Kristen Melen, Deputy Clerk to the Honorable VINCE CHHABRIA 3

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?