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)

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