McNeely v. Chappell

Filing 5

ORDER OF TRANSFER. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/9/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/9/2012)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 6 7 No. C 12-1483 CW (PR) DOCK McNEELY, Petitioner, v. KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden, Respondent. ORDER OF TRANSFER / 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin State 11 Prison, has filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus 12 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the validity of criminal 13 charges filed against him. 14 In 2000, Petitioner sought habeas corpus relief in the United 15 States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 16 challenging the constitutional validity of his five-year pretrial 17 detention on criminal charges filed in Sacramento County Superior 18 Court. 19 Court of Appeals found that Petitioner had been denied his 20 constitutional right to a speedy trial, reversed the district court 21 and ordered Petitioner's immediate release from custody, with 22 prejudice to re-prosecution of the criminal charges. 23 v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 832 (9th Cir. 2003). 24 The Eastern District denied relief, but the Ninth Circuit See McNeely In the instant petition, Petitioner appears to allege that he 25 was re-arrested by Sacramento police and currently is imprisoned as 26 a pretrial detainee on the same criminal charges, in violation of 27 the Ninth Circuit's ruling. 28 A habeas petition by a state pretrial detainee properly is 1 brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 2 1053, 1058 (9th Cir. 2007). 3 federal district, the petition may be filed in either the district 4 of confinement or the district of conviction. 5 Although each district has concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the 6 petition, the district court for the district where the petition is 7 filed "in the exercise of its discretion and furtherance of justice 8 may transfer the application to the other district court for 9 hearing and determination." United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 See Hoyle v. Ada County, 501 F.3d In a state containing more than one 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Id. Here, Petitioner is confined within the venue of the Northern 11 District, but he is challenging the validity of criminal charges 12 filed against him in the Eastern District. 13 charges were filed in violation of the Ninth Circuit's ruling 14 granting relief to Petitioner in his previous habeas action filed 15 in the Eastern District. 16 petition should be heard in the Eastern District. He maintains that those Consequently, the Court finds that the 17 Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and in the 18 interest of justice, the Clerk of the Court is ordered to TRANSFER 19 this action forthwith to the United States District Court for the 20 Eastern District of California. 21 22 23 All remaining motions are TERMINATED on this Court's docket as no longer pending in this Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: 4/9/2012 25 CLAUDIA WILKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28 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?